ABL Diamond Polymer

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE (Banking Jurisdiction)

C.M. No.______/2009.

InCOS. No.24/2005

titled

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & others.

Application by the Plaintiff under Sections 7 & 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance of 2001) and Section 151 CPC read with all other enabling provisions of law for disposal of applications for leave to defend the suit filed by the Defendants and passing of decree.

Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. That the titled suit having been filed for recovery of Rs. 101,391,028.14 as

outstanding on 30-06-2005 is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court

since 01-10-2005. Titled suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of the

above amount through sale of mortgaged/charged properties, hypothecated and

pledged stocks as well as enforcement of personal/corporate guarantees by the

Defendants

2. That on receipt of notices of the titled suit, Defendants filed separate applications

for leave to defend the titled suit (PLAs) as per details below. Plaintiff also filed

replies of the said PLAs:

I. PLA No.42-B/2005 by the Defendant No.1,

II. PLA No.43-B/2005 by the Defendants No.2 to 4,

III. PLA No.44-B/2005 by the Defendant No.5, and

IV. PLA No.45-B/2005 by the Defendants No.6 to 9.

3. That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 have been sued in

capacity of guarantors as they stood as guarantors by executing personal

guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees respectively in favour of the

Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to and availed

by Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff Bank. Similarly, the Defendant No.5 also

mortgaged his property/assets with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities that

are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendant No. 5 has also been

sued in capacity of mortgagor having mortgaged its properties as security for the

facilities that are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendants Nos. 2

to 9 are also liable for the suit amount and as prayed for in the Plaint a decree is

also liable to be passed against them through sale of their properties whether

mortgaged or not.

4. That on the basis of admissions made by the Defendant No.1, through the

judgment dated 27-11-2006, this Honourable Court was pleased to pass an interim

Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 for Rs.50,199,692.69. It

is further submitted that while passing the aforesaid interim Decree dated 27-11-

2006, this Honourable Court was also pleased to fix 06-12-2006 for further

arguments on PLAs. It is submitted that for one reason or the other it has not

proved possible to conclude arguments on the aforesaid PLAs even after the lapse

of twenty eight months. Over this period of twenty eight months the Plaintiff

Bank has made every effort possible to enable adjudication of the aforesaid PLAs

but adjournments sought on behalf of the Defendants have frustrated this effort.

5. That over the past twenty eight months after passing of the interim Decree dated

27-11-2006, no payment whatsoever has been made to the Plaintiff/Applicant

Bank despite the fact that a large undeniable liability of the Defendants qua the

Plaintiff Bank exists. This liability will survive in large measure even if all

contentions made in the aforesaid PLAs were to be accepted, of which there is

little possibility.

6. That for execution of the aforesaid interim Decree dated 26-11-2006, Plaintiff, on

06-02-2007, also instituted an execution petition being Execution Petition No.4-

B/2007 but the interim Decree dated 26-11-2006 could not be executed and no

amount there under could be recovered by the Plaintiff due to successive

objections and delaying tactics adopted by the Defendants. It is submitted that

through the Objection Petition No.7-B/2008 filed in the aforesaid execution

petition, the Defendant No.1 has raised objections to the execution of the interim

Decree dated 26-11-2006, inter alia, on the grounds that till disposal of the

aforesaid PLAs, the properties of the Defendant No.1 could not be sold as it

would tantamount to sale of the properties without judicially deciding the case. It

is submitted that the above assertion by the Defendants is totally against the law

as under section 11(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)

Ordinance of 2001 (“the Ordinance”), an interim decree, for all purposes

including appeal and execution, is a decree under the Ordinance. Therefore, the

aforesaid interim Decree dated 26-11-2006 can be executed without final disposal

of the aforesaid PLAs.

7. That it is submitted, however, that the titled suit has been filed for recovery of

Rs.101,391,028.14 but as stated in para 4 above, the aforesaid interim Decree

dated 26-11-2006 was passed only for the sum of Rs.50,199,692.69 admitted by

the Defendant No.1 to be its outstanding liability. Therefore, as the huge amount

of the Plaintiff is struck up, it will be in the interest of justice and equity if the

aforesaid PLAs mentioned in para 2 above are dismissed and the titled suit is

decreed for the full suit amount of Rs.101,391,028.14 against all defendants as

prayed for in the Plaint.

In view of the above facts, it is respectfully prayed that the aforesaid PLA No.42-

B/2005 by the Defendant No.1, PLA No.43-B/2005 by the Defendants No.2 to 4, PLA

No.44-B/2005 by the Defendant No.5 and PLA No.45-B/2005 by the Defendants No.6 to

9 may kindly be rejected and the suit of the Plaintiff Bank may kindly be decreed against

all the Defendants.

Any other order deemed fit and proper may also kindly be passed by this

Honourable Court.

Plaintiff/Applicant (ABL)

through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate Supreme Court.

SALMAN AKRAM RAJAM.A.(CANTAB.) LL.M (London)LL.M (Harvard)

Advocate Supreme Court. 33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore.

I, the above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly swear and give evidence on oath, on

behalf of the Plaintiff, as under:

1. That 1 am an officer of the Plaintiff and at the time of filing the titled suit was

posted as Relationship Manager, Assets Management Branch, of the Plaintiff

situated at ABL199, Upper Mall, Lahore. Presently I am posted as Wing Head,

Special Vigilance Cell ABL, 6th floor Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town

Lahore. Being Relationship Manager of the Plaintiff’s aforesaid Assets

Management Branch, I was dealing the case of the Defendant No.1.

Therefore, I am conversant with the facts of the case.

2. Titled suit on behalf of the Plaintiff has been filed by the Deponent along

with Mr. Anjum Pervaiz who is Vice President and also Manager/Assistant

General Manager of the Plaintiff Bank of its aforesaid branch (Copy of the

Letter dated 24-09-2003 is Exb-PW/1). I along with the aforesaid officer

have signed the Plaint and other documents having been duly authorized by

the Plaintiff Bank to institute the suit, verify plaint and appoint advocates

etc. and to do all acts necessary and incidental for prosecution of the case

on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank. Copy of the Power of Attorney granted by

the Plaintiff to me is attached with the Plaint (Exb-PW/2). Copy of the

Resolutions dated 12-06-1976 and 8-1-1979 passed by the Board of

Directors of the Plaintiff attached with the reply to the Written Statement

are produced as Exb- PW/3 & Exb- PW/3A. I am conversant with the facts of

the case. Mr. Anjum Pervaiz and the Deponent being authorized

representatives of the Plaintiff have validly instituted the titled suit on

behalf of the Plaintiff. Similarly, Suit has been instituted in accordance with

the provisions of section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of

Finances) Ordinance, 2001(Ordinance of 2001).

S UIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 101,391,028.14 AS OUTSTANDING ON 30-06-2005 THROUGH SALE OF MORTGAGED/CHARGED PROPERTIES, HYPOTHECATED AND PLEDGED STOCKS AS WELL AS ENFORCEMENT OF PERSONAL/CORPORATE GUARANTEES.


1. That the Plaintiff is a banking company, incorporated under the Companies

Ordinance, 1984 having its registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road,

Lahore and a branch amongst others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main

G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The Plaintiff is a financial institution for the

purposes of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001

(“the Ordinance”) and, therefore, competent to institute this suit before this

Honourable Court.

2. That the titled suit has been filed through Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, Chief

Manager/Manager Branch and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Malik an officer of the

Plaintiff’s Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The said

officers have been/are duly authorized by the Plaintiff Bank to institute the suit,

verify plaint and appoint advocates etc. and to do all acts necessary and incidental

for prosecution of the case on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank. The said officers are

also conversant with the facts of the titled case. (Copies of the Power of Attorney

are attached as Annex-A and A/I). The aforesaid Chief Manager/Branch Manger

Mr. Raza Saleem Khan is also authorized to institute the titled suit and to sign and

verify the plaint on behalf of the Plaintiff under Section 9(I) of the Ordinance of

2001 (Annex-A/2).

3. That Defendant No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the

Companies Ordinance, 1984 with its Head Office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road,

Shahdara, Lahore and Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 12-A, New

Industrial Area, Mirpur A.J.K.

4. That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as

guarantors by executing personal guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees

respectively in favour of the Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial

facilities extended to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank.

Defendant No.1 also mortgaged, charged and pledged its fixed assets and stocks

respectively with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the

titled suit. Similarly, Defendant No. 5 also mortgaged its property/assets with the

Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit

5. That all the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the heading of

the plaint which are sufficient for the purposes of the processes that may be issued

by this learned Court.

6. That as on 30-06-2005 the Defendants owe and are liable to pay to the Plaintiff

Bank a sum of Rs. 101,391,028.14 against the financial facilities availed by

Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff as per details given below:

S.N Type of Finance Outstanding Amount i) Running Finance of Rs.50.0 M a)Principal Rs. 49,985,052.69

b)Markup Rs. 17,634,018.87 Total:- Rs.67,619,071.56

ii) Cash Finance of Rs.30.0 M a) Principal Rs. 9,393,175.00b)Markup Rs. 20,360,256.48 Total:- Rs. 29,753,431.48

iiii) FADB a)Principal Rs. 3,371,748.00b) Markup Rs 646,777.10 Total: Rs. 4,018,525.10

Grand Total Rs.101,391,028.14

7. That the Defendant No.1 had opened on 29-05-1996 and maintained an account

with the Plaintiff’s Main Branch at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore bearing

Current Account No.1881 and titled M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited.

Copies of the Resolution dated 22-05-1996 passed by the Board of Directors of

Defendant No.1 for opening the above account, account opening form dated

29.05.1996 and Certificate of Incorporation of the Defendant No.1 issued by the

Deputy Registrar of the Companies, Mirpur (A.J.K) on 21-05-1996 are attached

as Annex-B, B/1 & C respectively.

8. That subsequently Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff Bank to provide to it

working capital financial facilities required for its project situated at Plot No.12-

A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur (A.J.K).

The request of Defendant No.1 was accepted and the Plaintiff Bank provided to

Defendant No.1 from time to time various financial facilities such as Running

Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limits etc. The Plaintiffs on yearly basis

continuously renewed these facilities. In the year 2001 Plaintiff on the request of

Defendant No.1 again granted to the Defendant No.1 inter alia the Running

Finance facility of Rs.50.000 Million, Cash Finance facility of Rs.100 Million and

L/C (sight/DA) limit of Rs.150.000 Million etc. A copy of the Sanction Advice

dated 9-4-2001 by the Plaintiff is attached as Annex-D. Maturity dates of the

above facilities were 31-03-2002.

9. That as evidence of and by way of security for the Running Finance of Rs.50.00

Million, Cash Finance Facility of Rs.100 million and L/C (sight DA) of

Rs.150.000 Million renewed and approved by the aforesaid Sanction Advice

dated 9-4-2001, Defendant No.1 in addition to charges/mortgages specified in

para 10 below of this plaint executed/furnished the following documents:

A. Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million.

a) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-E). Under the terms

of the Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. 64.178(M) was payable by the

Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff in lump sum on 31-03-2002.

b) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.50.000 million plus Mark-up

(Annex-E/1).

c) Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 (Annex- E/2).

B. Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million.

a) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F). Under the terms of

the Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs.128.356 million was payable by the


b) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.100 (M) plus Mark-up

(Annex-F/1).

c) Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F/2). Pledged stocks are lying at

the two premises situated at Bara Dari Road, Shahdrah and Molanwal 23 K.M

Main Multan Road and are detailed in the two Stocks Reports attached as

Annex- F/3 & Annex- F/4.

C. L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million.

a) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-G). Under the terms of


Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff or maturity of each import bill or in lump sum

on 31-03-2002.

b) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.150.00 million plus M-up dated

(Annex-G/1).

Under this limit, Plaintiff on the request of the Defendant No. 1 had established

inter alia a Letter of Credit No.2004/001. On receipt by the Plaintiff of the

shipping documents under the above L/C, it delivered the same for clearance of

the consignment through M/s Al-Nawab Traders Karachi as instructed by the

Defendant No.1 vide letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-04-

2004(Annex-G/2). By the said letter Defendant No.1 also advised the Plaintiff

that after getting released the imported goods the same may be dispatched to its

store at its factory premises at Plot No. 12-A New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad

Kashmir). Accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered the imported goods at the above

place as per the instruction of the Defendant No.1. Similarly, Defendant No.1 also

accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Annex-G/3)

and forwarded the same to the Plaintiff under the cover of the Letter

No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004 (Annex-G/4). By the above the Letter

No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004, Defendant No.1 confirmed and assured the

Plaintiff to make the payment under the aforesaid Bill of Exchange on its due date

of 28-06-2004. However, Defendant No.1 failed to pay the amount due under the

Bill of Exchange of US$ 214,130.00 equivalent to Rs, 9,019,498.00 on the due

date of 30-06-2004. Therefore, the aforesaid outstanding amount was converted

into FADB (Finance Against Dishonored Bills) as per the original approval.

10. That in addition to the documents mentioned in para-9 above of this plaint, as

security for the above Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit/FADB, the

Defendant Nos.1 & 5 mortgaged and charged their assets with the Plaintiff.

Details of the mortgaged and hypothecated assets and the documents whereby

said mortgages and charges were created are as under:

A. Mortgages & charges by the Defendant No.1.

i. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Annex – H).

ii. Letter of Hypothecation dated 26.08.1999 (Annex – H/1).

iii. Form X dated 28.08.1999 (Annex – H/2).

iv. Certificate of Charge Registration dated 01.09.1999 (Annex – H/2a).

v. Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/3).

vi. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/4).

vii. Letter of Hypothecation dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/5).

viii. Form XVI dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/6).

ix. Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Annex – H/7).

x. General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Annex – H/8).

By the documents mentioned here-in-above, Defendant No.1 created first floating

charge and mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds/registered mortgage upon

the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New

Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all present and future

constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc. constructed and

installed thereon as well as all current assets, all book debts and its undertakings

both present and future. Copy of the Lease Deed dated 09-06-1996 deposited in

original with the Plaintiff for creation of equitable mortgage is attached as Annex

(H/3).

B. Mortgage by the Defendant No. 5.

(I). Mortgaged Property:

All that Piece and Parcel of land measuring 6 kanal ( as per measurement 225 sq ft per marla) in Khasra Nos. 331/237/3, 330/237/3, 333/237/3, 332/237/3, 339/237/3, 340/237/3 Khewat No 176 & Khatooni Nos. 251, 248, 254/1, 246, 238 and 239 as per Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 situated at Mauza Fatehpuri within Municipal Limits of MCL, Lahore together with all present and future constructions, fittings, installations machinery and equipment etc.

(II). Documents executed and furnished:

(i). Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (Annex-I).(ii). Mortgage Deed bearing registration No. 3855 registered with the

Sub-Registrar City, Lahore on 16-05-2002 (Annex-I/1). (iii). General Power of Attorney (Annex – I/2).

(iv). Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin evidencing mortgage in favour of the Plaintiff (Annex – I/3). (v). Letter of Continuity of Mortgage dated 25.04.2003 (Annex – I/4).

(vi). Following original sale deeds were deposited with the Plaintiff to create equitable mortgage;

a. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3541 (Annex-I/5),

b. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3538 (Annex-I/6),

c. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3607 (Annex-I/7),

d. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3606 (Annex-I/8),

e. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3539 (Annex-I/9),

f. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3537 (Annex-I/10).

11. That the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the Defendants No. 6 to 9 also executed

Personal Guarantees (Annex- J to J/2) and the Corporate Guarantee along with

the Letter of Awareness respectively (Annex- J/3 to J/4) in favour of the Plaintiff

Bank in consideration of and as joint security for the Running Finance, Cash

Finance and L/C limit extended to and availed by Defendant No.1 which are

subject matter of this suit.

12. That on maturity of the aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit

mentioned in paras 8 & 9 on 31-03-2002 the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to

renew the same. However, pending formal approval by the Plaintiff to renew the

above-facilities, the same being revolving limits were continued to be availed by

Defendant No.1. Subsequently, the above three facilities were formally renewed

firstly up to 30-06-2003 and then upto 30.06.2004 vide Sanction Advices dated

05-10-2002 and 12.09.2003 respectively. Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002

& 30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the

Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004

respectively and aforesaid Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 are

attached herewith as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3

However, although the above facilities were renewed and utilized by the

Defendants, they failed to execute the documents for renewal on one pretext or

another such as they started raising objections as to the applicable rate of mark-

up. Copies of letters dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002 and 01-02-2003 requesting for

reduction in mark-up and acknowledging their liabilities are attached as Annex-

L/1 and L/2 and L/3. Similarly, vide letter dated 08-02-2003 (Annex-L/4)

Defendants undertook to pay Rs.2.5 Million per month in aggregate against the

mark-up for the year 2002 payable by Defendant No.1 on the above two facilities

as well as by the other companies of the Diamond Group of Industries.

Defendants again vide letter dated 20-02-2003 (Annex-L/5) again undertook that

mark up for the years 2002 and 2003 would be adjusted latest by 31-12-2003 and

31-12-2004 respectively by payment of Rs.2.5 Million per month but they failed

to honor their commitments.

13. That through the letter dated 18-09-2003 (Annex- L/6) Plaintiff forwarded to the

Defendants the aforesaid Sanction Advice dated 12-09-2003 whereby the

aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit were renewed upto 30-

06-2004. By the above letter Plaintiff advised the Defendants to complete

documents and other formalities for the aforesaid renewed facilities. Later on vide

another letter dated 25-09-2003 (Annex- L/7) Defendants were again advised not

only to pay the outstanding markup as on 30-06-2003 amounting to Rs.10.638

Million against the Running Finance and Rs.18.163 Million against the Cash

Finance but also to complete formalities for the renewed facilities. However,

Defendants not only failed to complete the required documents but also vide letter

dated 27-09-2003 (Annex- L/8) refused to accept the aforesaid sanction advice by

wrongly disputing the amount of the aforesaid outstanding markup etc. As the

objections raised in the aforesaid letter dated 27-09-2003 were totally wrong, the

Plaintiff vide its letter dated 16-10-2003 (Annex-L/9) gave comprehensive reply

as well as it was conveyed to the Defendants to corporate and liquidate its

liabilities.

14. That from the above facts, it is clear that all the possible assistance was given and

granted to the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff from time to time as aforesaid by

way of providing Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance Facility and Letter of

Credit Facility as well as their renewal and enhancement. However, Defendant

No.1 as well as other Defendants failed to reciprocate in similar manner and failed

to pay/liquidate all of the aforesaid Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance

Facility and and Letter of Credit Facility/FADB on their due dates of 30-06-2004.

Although as aforesaid the Defendants have been acknowledging their liabilities

from time to time but failed to pay the amounts due under the respective facilities.

Copies of Letters whereby the Defendants acknowledged their liability and

committed to make payments have already been mentioned above and attached

with the plaint.

15. That every effort was made by the Plaintiff Bank to recover the outstanding

amounts from the Defendants but all such efforts were wasted as Defendants

failed to pay the aforesaid liabilities amounting to Rs. 101,391,028.14 as on 30-

06-2005. They were liable to pay the aforesaid amount but failed to pay the same

despite several requests from the Plaintiff Bank as aforesaid. Hence, this suit.

Particulars of the facilities subject matter of the suit as per Section 9(3) of the Ordinance, 2001 are as under:


(i) Principal amount of finance availed Rs. 3,969,964,743.99by Defendant No.1.

(ii) Principal Amount paid by the Defendant No.1. Rs. 3,922,979,691.30(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the relevant Statement of Account).

(iii) Principal Amount payable (i-ii above) Rs. 49,985,052.69Statement of Account is Annex-M.

(iv) Markup payable upto 30.06.2005 Rs.22,216,664.87

(Statement of Account is Annex M/1).

(v) Markup paid Rs.4,582,646.00(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the Annex M/1 above).

(vi) Balance mark up upto 30-06-05 (iv-v). Rs. 17,634,018.87

(vii) Amount of Finance principal and markup payable (iii + vi above) . Rs. 67,619,071.56

. It may be noted that the above facility/limit was on revolving basis and the

Defendant No.1 was entitled to make multiple withdrawals while remaining

within the maximum limit of Rs.50.00 Million at one point of time. Accordingly,

Defendant No.1 made total withdrawal of Rs. 3,969,964,743.99 against which

an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,922,979,691.30 was paid leaving the aforesaid

balance principal amount of Rs.49,985,052.69.


(i) Principal amount of finance availed Rs. 1,231,467,625.00by Defendant No.1.

(ii) Principal Amount paid by Rs. 1,222,074,450.00 the Defendant No.1. (Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the relevant Statement of Account)

(iii) Principal Amount payable (i-ii above) Rs.9,393,175.00Statement of Account is Annex-N.

(iv) Markup payable upto Rs.30,573,399.48 30.06.2005

(Statement of Account is Annex N/1)

(v) Markup paid Rs.10,213,143.00(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the Annex N/1 above).

(vi) Balance mark up upto 30-06-05 Rs 20,360,256.48 (iv-v).

(vii) Amount of Finance principal Rs.29,753,431.48and markup payable(iii+vi above).

It may be noted that the above facility/limit was on revolving basis and the





balance principal amount of Rs.9,393,175.00

C. FADB of Rs,9,019,498.00.

(i) Principal amount of finance availed by Defendant No.1. Rs.9,019,498.00

(ii) Principal Amount paid by the Rs. 5,647,750.00Defendant No.1. (Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the relevant Statement of Account)

(iii) Principal Amount payable (i-ii above) Rs.3,371,748.00

Statement of Account is Annex-O.

(iv) Markup payable upto Rs.741,696.10 30.06.2005

(Statement of Account is Annex O/1)

(v) Markup paid Rs.94, 919.00(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the Annex O/1 above).

(vi) Balance mark up upto 30-06-05 Rs. 646,777.10(iv-v).

(vii) Amount of Finance (principal) Rs.4, 018,525.10and markup payable(iii+vi above).

16. That the cause of the action arose firstly when the Running Finance Facility, Cash

Finance Facility and L/C limit were granted to Defendant No.1, secondly, when

the said facilities were renewed from time to time, thirdly when the FADB was

created against the aforesaid L/C limit and fourthly when the facilities subject

matter of the suit matured on 30-06-2004 but the same were not adjusted/ dues

against the said financial facilities were not paid on their aforesaid maturity date.

Each acknowledgement by the Defendants of their liability has also constituted a

cause of action. The cause of action still continues as the Defendants have failed

to discharge their obligations under various agreements and security

documents/guarantees despite various demands made by the Plaintiff Bank in this

respect.

17. The cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable

Court. Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were disbursed and were

repayable in Lahore. Defendant Nos.1 & 5 to 9 are also having their Registered/

Head offices at Lahore. Property mortgaged by the Defendant No.5 is also

situated at Lahore, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable

Court. All Defendants also reside and work for gains at Lahore. Therefore, this

Honourable Court can adjudicate upon this suit.

18. That the titled suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is valued at Rs.

101,391,028.14 and Court Fee of Rs.15, 000/- has been affixed on this plaint.

In view of the above facts and submissions, the Plaintiff most respectfully prays

and submits that a decree may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendants jointly and severally as under:

a) In the sum of Rs.101, 391,028.14 with all costs, charges and expenses payable

under the financing Agreements/Security Documents along with cost of fund in

terms of Section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance,

2001 from the date of default to the date of payment through enforcement of

mortgages and sale of the mortgaged properties and hypothecated/ pledged

machinery/plant and stocks as well as by enforcement of the Personal Guarantees

and Corporate Guarantee furnished by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9

respectively as well as sale of all other properties of Defendant Nos.1 to 9.

b) To authorize the Plaintiff to take possession and recover the properties and assets

of Defendant Nos.1 & 5 that are mortgaged/hypothecated/pledged or under any

charge of the Plaintiff Bank directly and if need be with the assistance of this

Court.

c) To attach and appoint receiver(s) of the properties those were

mortgaged/hypothecated/ charged/ pledged by Defendant Nos.1 & 5 with the

Plaintiff Bank and detailed in the paras- 9 & 10 of the plaint.

d) Any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and appropriate in the

circumstances of the Suit.

e) Costs of the suit may kindly also be granted.

EVIDENCE FINISHED

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE(Banking Jurisdiction)

C.M. No. 65-B/2009In

C.O.S. No. 24/2005

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited.

REPLY BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1 FOR CLOSURE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF.


1. Needs no comments.

2. It is submitted that the Plaintiff had before the date fixed for recording of its

evidence i.e. 31-1-2009 has filed an application being C.M. No. 55-B/2009 before

this Honourable Court praying for extension in time for filing of affidavits of its

witnesses and recording of their evidence till 28-02-2009 and 07-03-2009

respectively. Above application is still pending and reply thereof has not been

filed by the Defendant No.1. It is further submitted that Plaintiff through an

earlier Application being C.M. No. 425/2008 had, inter alia, prayed to this

Honourable Court for amendments in the issues 1, 2 and 3 by placing the onus to

prove the said issues on the Defendant and striking out issue No.6 framed by this

Honourable Court on 10-12-2008. This application is still pending but the

Applicant/Defendant No.1 has still not filed reply thereof.

3. Denied that date of 5-11-2008 for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff was

fixed with the consent of its counsel. It is further submitted that this Honourable

Court had allowed the Plaintiff on 5-11-2008 to submit the evidence of its witness

through affidavits.

4. Denied vehemently. Denied that Plaintiff has deliberately abstained from filing

affidavits of its witnesses. Similarly, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction under

Order 17 Rule 1 read with section 148 CPC on sufficient cause being shown at

any stage of the suit to grant time to any party. Through the two applications

mentioned in para 2 above, Plaintiff/Respondent has demonstrated sufficient

cause for seeking extension in time for recording of its evidence. It is further

submitted that the provision of the Order XVII Rule 3 are not mandatory in nature

and this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to extend time for recording evidence

of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the right of the Plaintiff to produce its evidence is not

liable to be closed.

5. Contents as stated are denied vehemently. Reply of the para 2 and 4 above are

reiterated.

6. It is clarified that this Honourable Court vide Order dated 5-12-2008 had extended

the time to record the evidence of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it has been erroneously

stated that the Plaintiff had failed to produce its evidence before the learned Local

Commission on 6-12-2008.

7. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has moved this Honourable Court before 31-1-

2009 for extending the date of recording of evidence etc. Contents of para 2 above

are reiterated.

8. Denied vehemently. Denied that the Plaintiff has either maliciously or

contemptuously failed to file the affidavits of its witnesses. Denied that the

Plaintiff is not willing to produce its evidence before the learned Commission. As

stated above, Plaintiff has already requested this Honourable Court for reframing

of the issues and extending time for recording of Plaintiff’s witnesses. Contents of

para 2 above are reiterated.

9. Denied vehemently. Contents of paras 2 and 8 above are reiterated. Denied that

Plaintiff’s right to produce its evidence is liable to be closed.

In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the application under reply

may kindly be dismissed.

Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly passed

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF (ABL)

through

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED Advocate High Court.


C.M. No. 65-B/2009In

C.O.S. No. 24/2005


REPLY BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1 FOR CLOSURE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF.

AFFIDAVIT OF: Abdul Shakoor Bhattil, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.

I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. Needs no comments.2. It is submitted that the Plaintiff had before the date fixed for recording of its

evidence i.e. 31-1-2009 has filed an application being C.M. No. 55-B/2009 before this Honourable Court praying for extension in time for filing of affidavits of its witnesses and recording of their evidence till 28-02-2009 and 07-03-2009 respectively. Above application is still pending and reply thereof has not been filed by the Defendant No.1. It is further submitted that Plaintiff through an earlier Application being C.M. No. 425/2008 had, inter alia, prayed to this Honourable Court for amendments in the issues 1, 2 and 3 by placing the onus to prove the said issues on the Defendant and striking out issue No.6 framed by this Honourable Court on 10-12-2008. This application is still pending but the Applicant/Defendant No.1 has still not filed reply thereof.

3. Denied that date of 5-11-2008 for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff was fixed with the consent of its counsel. It is further submitted that this Honourable Court had allowed the Plaintiff on 5-11-2008 to submit the evidence of its witness through affidavits.

4. Denied vehemently. Denied that Plaintiff has deliberately abstained from filing affidavits of its witnesses. Similarly, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction under Order 17 Rule 1 read with section 148 CPC on sufficient cause being shown at any stage of the suit to grant time to any party. Through the two applications mentioned in para 2 above, Plaintiff/Respondent has demonstrated sufficient cause for seeking extension in time for recording of its evidence. It is further submitted that the provision of the Order XVII Rule 3 are not mandatory in nature and this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to extend time for recording evidence of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the right of the Plaintiff to produce its evidence is not liable to be closed.

5. Contents as stated are denied vehemently. Reply of the para 2 and 4 above are reiterated.

6. It is clarified that this Honourable Court vide Order dated 5-12-2008 had extended the time to record the evidence of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it has been erroneously

stated that the Plaintiff had failed to produce its evidence before the learned Local Commission on 6-12-2008.

7. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has moved this Honourable Court before 31-1-2009 for extending the date of recording of evidence etc. Contents of para 2 above are reiterated.

8. Denied vehemently. Denied that the Plaintiff has either maliciously or contemptuously failed to file the affidavits of its witnesses. Denied that the Plaintiff is not willing to produce its evidence before the learned Commission. As stated above, Plaintiff has already requested this Honourable Court for reframing of the issues and extending time for recording of Plaintiff’s witnesses. Contents of para 2 above are reiterated.

9. Denied vehemently. Contents of paras 2 and 8 above are reiterated. Denied that Plaintiff’s right to produce its evidence is liable to be closed.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _______ 2009 that the contents of the above

affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT


C.M. No.______ -B/2009In

C.O.S. No. 24/2005


(Application by the Plaintiff Allied Bank Limited under sections 7 & 13 (4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 (“the Ordinance of 2001”) read with section 151 of CPC and all others enabling provisions of law for extending date of filing affidavits and recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff.


1. That the titled suit is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.

2. That vide order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to appoint

Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari as commission to record evidence in

the titled case and fixed his remuneration. The said remuneration has already been

paid.

3. That the proceedings for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff are fixed on 31-

01-2009 before Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari. Plaintiff is to file

affidavits of its 12 witnesses for examination-in-chief of its witnesses.

4. That the titled suit was filed in the year 2005 and several main witnesses of

Plaintiff have since retired and left the service of the Plaintiff. The said witnesses

will be available after 15th of February 2009 and their affidavits will be prepared

thereafter. Similarly, old record of the subject matter of the titled suit, the copies

whereof have been attached with the plaint and reply to PLAs is being traced and

compiled which can take a three weeks time. Therefore, it is in the interest of

justice if the dates of filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff and

recording of the evidence already fixed on 31-01-200 before Mr. Justice (Retd)

Karamat Nazir Bhindari are extended as under:

i. Filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff. 28-02-2009,

ii. Recording of the evidence of Plaintiff’s witnesses. 0 7-03-2009.

In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may

be pleased to make an order;

i. for allowing the Plaintiff file affidavits of its witness till 28-02-

2009,

ii. for extending the date of recording of the evidence from 31-01-

2009 to 07-03-2009 or any other date in the second week of March

2009.

Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly

passed

APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF (ABL)

through

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED Advocate High Court

303-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore.


C.M. No.______ -B/2009In

C.O.S. No. 24/2005

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited


AFFIDAVIT OF: Abdul Shakoor Bhattil, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.



2. That vide order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to appoint

Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari as commission to record evidence in

the titled case and fixed his remuneration. The said remuneration has already been

paid.

3. That the proceedings for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff are fixed on 31-

01-2009 before Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari. Plaintiff is to file

affidavits of its 12 witnesses for examination-in-chief of its witnesses.



will be available after 15th of February 2009 and their affidavits will be prepared

thereafter. Similarly, old record of the subject matter of the titled suit, the copies

whereof have been attached with the plaint and reply to PLAs is being traced and

compiled which can take a three weeks time. Therefore, it is in the interest of

justice if the dates of filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff and

recording of the evidence already fixed on 31-01-200 before Mr. Justice (Retd)

Karamat Nazir Bhindari are extended as under:

i. Filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff. 28-02-2009,

ii. Recording of the evidence of Plaintiff’s witnesses. 0 7-03-2009.

DEPONENT

Verification:


affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT


C.M No.______ B/2008

COS. No.24/2005

titled





2. That vide order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to frame

issues, direct the parties to file list of their respective witnesses. The Honourable

Court also appointed Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari as commission to

record evidence in the titled case and fixed his remuneration.

3. That on 05-11-2008, Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari held the first

meeting and fixed 07-12-2008 for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff. Mr.

Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari further directed the Plaintiff to obtain

permission of this Honourable Court for recording of the evidence/examination-

in-chief of its witnesses through affidavits.

4. That through the aforesaid Order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was

pleased to frame, inter alia, the following issues numbers 1, 2, 3 & 6:

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is maintainable and has the Plaintiff come into the Court

with clean hands? OPP.

3. Whether the suit has been instituted and verified in consonance with the

provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance,

2001? OPP.

6. Whether the Plaintiff Bank was authorized to pay a sum of Rs.260.00

million to the Customs Department? OPD

5. That the aforesaid issues 1, 2 and 3 were raised by the Defendants through their

pleadings and onus to prove the said issues should have been put on the

Defendants. However, inadvertently onus to prove the aforesaid issues No.1, 2 &

3 has been put on the Plaintiff. Similarly, the matter in issue No.6 is not the

subject matter of the titled suit. It is submitted that the titled suit has not been filed

for recovery of any amount arising out of the sum of Rs.260.00 million paid to the

Customs Department on enforcement of any Guarantee. In fact the aforesaid sum

of Rs.260.00 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Customs Department on

enforcement of the Guarantees was subject matter of C.O.S.No.18/2005 titled

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Industries Limited Etc which was decreed

by this Honourable Court on 12-10-2007 However, inadvertently issue No.6 has

been framed.

6. That it is in the interest of justice that the aforesaid issues 1, 2 and 3 may be

ordered to be amended and the onus to prove the said issues be put on the

Defendants. Similarly, the aforesaid issue No.6 that has been inadvertently framed

may also be kindly ordered to be struck out.

7. That as directed by Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari on 05-11-2008,

permission may be granted to the Plaintiff to record evidence/examination-in-

chief of its witnesses through affidavits as per section 13(4) of the Ordinance of

2001.



will be available after 15th of December 2008 and their affidavits will be prepared

thereafter. Therefore, it is also in the interest of justice if the date of recording of

the evidence of 07-12-2008 fixed by Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari is

adjourned till second week of January 2009.

In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may


iii. for putting the onus to prove the issues No.1, 2 & 3 on the

Defendants.,

iv. for striking out the issue No.6,

v. for granting permission to the Plaintiff to record

evidence/examination-in-chief of its witnesses through affidavits

as per section 13(4) of the Ordinance of 2001,

vi. for extending the date of recording of the evidence from 07-12-

2008 to any other date in the second week of January 2009.

Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly

passed

Applicant/Plaintiff (ABL)

through

SALMAN AKRAM RAJA MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED Advocate High Court Advocate High Court



COS. No.24/2005

titled


(CERTIFICATE OF READINESS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AND LIST OF WITNESSES BY THE PLAINTIFF ALLIED BANK LIMITED)


1. That through the Order dated 10-10-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to

direct the parties to file list of their respective witnesses.

2. That the Plaintiff hereby certifies that it is ready and will produce its evidence in

support of its assertions made in its pleadings/Plaint/Replication. Plaintiff will

produce/summon through this Honourable and record evidence of the following

witnesses who will also bring with them and produce before this Honourable

Court necessary record and the documents:

1. Muhammad Saleem Raza (Former Chief Manager, ABL, Shahdra Branch, Lahore now retired) R/o 104-Main Bazar Shahdra Town Lahore.

2. Muhammad Anwar Malik (Former Officer, ABL, Shahdra Branch, now retired) R/o Mohallah Muslim Pura, Bara Adda Larian, Sharqpur Sharif, District, Sheikhupura.

3. Ijaz Bashir Bhatti, Regional Head, CRBG, ABL, Regional office, Gujrat.

4. Mian Asif Mehmood (Manager ABL, Azam Cloth Market, Lahore.

5. Syed Asad Raza Naqvi, Officer Allied Bank Limited Gulshan-e-Ravi Branch Lahore.

6. Syed Mujtaba Gillani, Wing Head, Special Vigilance Cell ABL, 6th floor Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore.

7. Mian Muhammad Rasheed, Area Manager ABL, SAM Branch, 6th floor Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore.

8. Nawaz Ali Malik Manager ABL, Shahdra Branch, Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore.

9. Faseh Siddiqui Manager RC & RR, ABL, Karachi.

10. Shaukat Ali Larik (Retired from ABL now in “My Bank”, Head Compliance,

Karachi).

11. If, after recording of the evidence of the Defendants, it is felt necessary to record

evidence of further witnesses, the said witnesses shall be produced with the

permission of this Honourable Court.

Plaintiff(ABL)

through

SALMAN AKRAM RAJAAdvocate High Court M.A.(Cantab) LL.M(London) LL.M (Harvard).Advocate Supreme Court.

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMEDAdvocate High Court


PRECEPT Under Section 46 CPC.


Execution Petition No.4-B/2007


Upon hearing the Decree Holder it is ordered that this precept be sent to the Honourable

High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under section 46 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the direction to attach the property specified in the annexed

schedule and to hold the same pending any application which may be made by the Decree

Holder for execution of the decree.

Schedule.

“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-

A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together

with all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc

constructed and installed thereon” (hereinafter referred to as the Property).

Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.

Judge.


Order sending the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 for execution by the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad.


In

COS. No.24/2005


WHEREAS the Decree Holder in the above suit has applied to this Court for a certificate

to be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad

for execution the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 in the above suit by the said Court,

alleging that the property of the Judgment Debtor is situated in the local limits of the

jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at

Muzaffarabad, and it is deemed necessary and proper to send a certificate to the

Honorable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under Order XXI,

Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is

Ordered:

That a copy of this order be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu &

Kashmir at Muzaffarabad with a copy of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and of any

other order which may have been made for execution of the same and a certificate of non-

satisfaction.

Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.

Judge.


Certificate of non-satisfaction of Decree.

Certified that no satisfaction of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 of this Court in the

suit bearing C.O.S. No.24/2005 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers

(Pvt.) Limited, a copy of which is hereto attached has been obtained by execution within

the jurisdiction of this Court.

Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.

Judge.


C.M. No.____/2008.

In



Application under Section 46 read with section 151 CPC for issuance of precept to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad.

Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable

Court.

2. That the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable

Court through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as

specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition

and also given below:

“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot

No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir)

together with all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc


3. That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable

Court through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers

to continue with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to

ensure that all codal and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.

4. That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu &

Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach

the Property is issued by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of

the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may

be pleased to issue to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,

Muzaffarabad, a precept to attach the Property.


Decree Holder (ABL)

through

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED SALMAN AKRAM RAJAAdvocate High Court M.A.(Cantab) LL.M(London)

LL.M (Harvard).Advocate

Supreme Court.


C.M. No.____/2008.

In




AFFIDAVIT OF: Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.


1. That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.

2. That the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court

through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as specified in

the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition and also given below:

“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A

situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together with all

constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and installed

thereon” (hereinafter referred to as the Property).

3. That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable Court

through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers to continue

with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to ensure that all codal

and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.

4. That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, it is

necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach the Property is issued

by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,

Muzaffarabad.

DEPONENT

Verification:Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _______ 2008 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT


C.M. No.____/2008.

In



Application under Section 39, Order 21 rules 5 to 10 read with section 151 CPC for sending to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad for execution the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 .



Court.














Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that the Interim Decree

dated 27-11-2006 is sent by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court

of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad for execution thereof.


be pleased order to send for execution, to the Honourable High Court of the Azad

Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006.


Decree Holder (ABL)

through



Supreme Court.


C.M. No.____/2008.

In




Affidavit of Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.


2. That the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition and also given below:

“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together with all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and installed thereon” (hereinafter referred to as the Property).

3. That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable Court through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers to continue with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to ensure that all codal and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.

4. That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is sent by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad for execution thereof.

DEPONENT


DEPONENT


C.M. No.____/2008.

In



Application under Sections 7 & 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51, Order 21 Rules 66,67 & 82 and Section 151 CPC for auction of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.



Court.






No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with

all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed

and installed thereon.”

3. That the Court Auctioneers have already filed, in this Honourable Court, the

Proclamation of Sale through public auction of the aforesaid assets and notice

under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was issued to the Judgment Debtor. That the

Judgment Debtor had filed objection to the sale of assets and the reply whereof

was filed by the Decree Holder. When the titled Execution Petition was fixed on

06-02-2008, the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor had sought adjournment on the

ground that before arguing the Objection Petition, he would like to see the

contents of the reply thereof and the Honurable Court was pleased to adjourn the

case for 26-02-2008. On 26-02-2008 the case was again adjourned for arguments

for 11-03-2008. However, on 11-03-2008, titled Execution Petition could not be

heard due to the Bomb Explosions in the City.

4. That the Interim Decree was passed on 27-11-2006 but despite passage of a

considerable period of time, the Decree Holder has been un-successful in

recovering the decretal amount. Under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions

(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001, an Objection Petition is to be decided

within 30 days of filing thereof which period has already lapsed.

2. That after 26-02-2008, the Respondent/Judgment Debtor has started removing and

selling machinery charged with the Decree Holder and installed at the premises

mentioned in para-2 above. If the Respondent/Judgment Debtor is not restrained

from selling machinery and other fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree

Holder, not only the Decree Holder will suffer an irreparable loss but also the

process of law and the Decree dated 27-11-2006 would be frustrated.

3. That it is in the interest of justice that the Objection Petition filed by the

Respondent be dismissed, Respondent be restrained from selling the machinery

and other fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder and the Court

Auctioneers be directed to sell the assets specified in para-2 above and in the Lists

(Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition.



vii. for dismissing the Objection Petition filed by the Respondent,

viii. for restraining the Respondent from selling machinery and other

fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder and

specified in para-2 above, and

ix. for directing the Court auctioneers to sell through public auction

the assets specified in para-2 above.


Decree Holder (ABL)

through



Supreme Court.


COS. No.24/2005

titled


(CERTIFICATE OF READINESS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AND LIST OF WITNESSES BY THE DEFENDANT ALLIED BANK LIMITED)


1. That through the Order dated 19-05-2006, this Honourable Court was pleased to

direct the parties to file list of their respective witnesses.

2. That the Plaintiff hereby certifies that it is ready and will produce its evidence in

support of its assertions made in its pleadings/Plaint/Replication. Defendant will

produce/summon through this Honourable and record evidence of the following

witnesses who will also bring with them and produce before this Honourable

Court necessary record and the documents:

If, after recording of the evidence of the Plaintiffs, it is felt necessary to record evidence

of further witnesses, the said witnesses including some hand writing expert shall

be produced with the permission of this Honourable Court.

Defendant(HBL)through

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMEDAdvocate High Court


PRECEPT Under Section 46 CPC.




Upon hearing the Decree Holder it is ordered that this precept be sent to the Honourable

High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under section 46 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the direction to attach the property specified in the annexed

schedule and to hold the same pending any application which may be made by the Decree

Holder for execution of the decree.

Schedule.

“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-

A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together



Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.

Judge.


Order sending the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 for execution by the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad.


In

COS. No.24/2005


WHEREAS the Decree Holder in the above suit has applied to this Court for a certificate

to be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad

for execution the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 in the above suit by the said Court,

alleging that the property of the Judgment Debtor is situated in the local limits of the

jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at

Muzaffarabad, and it is deemed necessary and proper to send a certificate to the

Honorable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under Order XXI,

Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is

Ordered:

That a copy of this order be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu &

Kashmir at Muzaffarabad with a copy of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and of any

other order which may have been made for execution of the same and a certificate of non-

satisfaction.

Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.

Judge.


Certificate of non-satisfaction of Decree.

Certified that no satisfaction of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 of this Court in the

suit bearing C.O.S. No.24/2005 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers

(Pvt.) Limited, a copy of which is hereto attached has been obtained by execution within

the jurisdiction of this Court.

Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.

Judge.


C.M. No.____/2008.

In






Court.














Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach

the Property is issued by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of

the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad.


be pleased to issue to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,

Muzaffarabad, a precept to attach the Property.


Decree Holder (ABL)

through



Supreme Court.


C.M. No.____/2008.

In




AFFIDAVIT OF: Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.



2. That the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court

through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as specified in

the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition and also given below:

“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A

situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together with all

constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and installed

thereon” (hereinafter referred to as the Property).

3. That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable Court

through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers to continue

with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to ensure that all codal

and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.

4. That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, it is

necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach the Property is issued

by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,

Muzaffarabad.

DEPONENT


DEPONENT


C.M. No.____/2008.

In






Court.














Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that the Interim Decree

dated 27-11-2006 is sent by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court

of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad for execution thereof.


be pleased order to send for execution, to the Honourable High Court of the Azad

Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006.


Decree Holder (ABL)

through



Supreme Court.


C.M. No.____/2008.

In




Affidavit of Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.



“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together with all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and installed thereon” (hereinafter referred to as the Property).

3. That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable Court through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers to continue with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to ensure that all codal and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.

4. That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is sent by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad for execution thereof.

DEPONENT


DEPONENT


C.M. No.____/2008.

In



Application under Sections 7 & 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51, Order 21 Rules 66,67 & 82 and Section 151 CPC for auction of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.



Court.






































x. for dismissing the Objection Petition filed by the Respondent,

xi. for restraining the Respondent from selling machinery and other



xii. for directing the Court auctioneers to sell through public auction



Decree Holder (ABL)

through



Supreme Court.


C.O.S No. ___________/2005

Allied Bank Limited [Formerly Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited], a banking company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and having its registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road, Lahore and a branch amongst others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore.

…….Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited having its Head office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Registered office/Mill/Factory at Plot No.12-A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur Azad Jammu Kashmir.

2. Mr. Waqar Ahmed Shaffi, S/o Mian S. M. Shaffi, R/o 94-D, Model Town, Lahore.

3. Mrs. Seema Iftikhar W/o Iftikhar A. Shaffi R/o 93-D, Model Town, Lahore.

4. Mr. Muhammad Saeed S/o M. Saeed R/o 19-Umar Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore.

5. Diamond Rubber Mills - a Firm, through its Partners Waqar A. Shafi, Seema Iftikhar and Farah Waqar, Malik Bagh Bara Dari Road, Shahdara, Lahore.

6. M/s Diamond Industries Limited having its Head/Registered office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Mill/Factory at Plot No.25 Amazai Industrial Estate Topi Ganduf Road, Swabi, NWFP.

7. M/s Shaffi Chemical Industries Limited a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 having its Principal Office at Malik Bagh Bara Dari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 2, Industrial Estate, Gadoon Amazai, Swabi NWFP.

8. M/s Crescent Industrial (Gadoon) Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited having its Principal office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 32/3, Industrial Estate, Gadoon Amazai, Swabi NWFP.

9. M/s Citifoam Industries (Pvt.) Limited a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 having its Head/Registered Office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdra, Lahore.

…….Defendants

S UIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 101,391,028.14 AS OUTSTANDING ON 30-06-2005 THROUGH SALE OF MORTGAGED/CHARGED PROPERTIES, HYPOTHECATED AND PLEDGED STOCKS AS WELL AS ENFORCEMENT OF PERSONAL/CORPORATE GUARANTEES.


1. That the Plaintiff is a banking company, incorporated under the Companies

Ordinance, 1984 having its registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road,

Lahore and a branch amongst others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main

G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The Plaintiff is a financial institution for the

purposes of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001

(“the Ordinance”) and, therefore, competent to institute this suit before this

Honourable Court.

2. That the titled suit has been filed through Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, Chief

Manager/Manager Branch and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Malik an officer of the

Plaintiff’s Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The said

officers have been/are duly authorized by the Plaintiff Bank to institute the suit,

verify plaint and appoint advocates etc. and to do all acts necessary and incidental

for prosecution of the case on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank. The said officers are

also conversant with the facts of the titled case. (Copies of the Power of Attorney

are attached as Annex-A and A/I). The aforesaid Chief Manager/Branch Manger

Mr. Raza Saleem Khan is also authorized to institute the titled suit and to sign and

verify the plaint on behalf of the Plaintiff under Section 9(I) of the Ordinance of

2001 (Annex-A/2).

3. That Defendant No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the

Companies Ordinance, 1984 with its Head Office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road,

Shahdara, Lahore and Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 12-A, New

Industrial Area, Mirpur A.J.K.

4. That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as

guarantors by executing personal guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees


facilities extended to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank.

Defendant No.1 also mortgaged, charged and pledged its fixed assets and stocks

respectively with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the

titled suit. Similarly, Defendant No. 5 also mortgaged its property/assets with the

Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit

5. That all the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the heading of

the plaint which are sufficient for the purposes of the processes that may be issued

by this learned Court.

6. That as on 30-06-2005 the Defendants owe and are liable to pay to the Plaintiff

Bank a sum of Rs. 101,391,028.14 against the financial facilities availed by

Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff as per details given below:

S.N Type of Finance Outstanding Amount i) Running Finance of Rs.50.0 M a)Principal Rs. 49,985,052.69

b)Markup Rs. 17,634,018.87 Total:- Rs.67,619,071.56




8. That the Defendant No.1 had opened on 29-05-1996 and maintained an account

with the Plaintiff’s Main Branch at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore bearing

Current Account No.1881 and titled M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited.

Copies of the Resolution dated 22-05-1996 passed by the Board of Directors of

Defendant No.1 for opening the above account, account opening form dated

29.05.1996 and Certificate of Incorporation of the Defendant No.1 issued by the

Deputy Registrar of the Companies, Mirpur (A.J.K) on 21-05-1996 are attached

as Annex-B, B/1 & C respectively.

8. That subsequently Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff Bank to provide to it

working capital financial facilities required for its project situated at Plot No.12-

A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur (A.J.K).

The request of Defendant No.1 was accepted and the Plaintiff Bank provided to

Defendant No.1 from time to time various financial facilities such as Running

Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limits etc. The Plaintiffs on yearly basis

continuously renewed these facilities. In the year 2001 Plaintiff on the request of

Defendant No.1 again granted to the Defendant No.1 inter alia the Running

Finance facility of Rs.50.000 Million, Cash Finance facility of Rs.100 Million and

L/C (sight/DA) limit of Rs.150.000 Million etc. A copy of the Sanction Advice

dated 9-4-2001 by the Plaintiff is attached as Annex-D. Maturity dates of the

above facilities were 31-03-2002.

9. That as evidence of and by way of security for the Running Finance of Rs.50.00

Million, Cash Finance Facility of Rs.100 million and L/C (sight DA) of

Rs.150.000 Million renewed and approved by the aforesaid Sanction Advice

dated 9-4-2001, Defendant No.1 in addition to charges/mortgages specified in

para 10 below of this plaint executed/furnished the following documents:


a) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-E). Under the terms

of the Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. 64.178(M) was payable by the


b) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.50.000 million plus Mark-up

(Annex-E/1).

c) Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 (Annex- E/2).


d) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F). Under the terms of



e) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.100 (M) plus Mark-up

(Annex-F/1).

f) Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F/2). Pledged stocks are lying at

the two premises situated at Bara Dari Road, Shahdrah and Molanwal 23 K.M

Main Multan Road and are detailed in the two Stocks Reports attached as

Annex- F/3 & Annex- F/4.

C. L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million.

c) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-G). Under the terms of


Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff or maturity of each import bill or in lump sum

on 31-03-2002.

d) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.150.00 million plus M-up dated

(Annex-G/1).

Under this limit, Plaintiff on the request of the Defendant No. 1 had established

inter alia a Letter of Credit No.2004/001. On receipt by the Plaintiff of the

shipping documents under the above L/C, it delivered the same for clearance of

the consignment through M/s Al-Nawab Traders Karachi as instructed by the

Defendant No.1 vide letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-04-

2004(Annex-G/2). By the said letter Defendant No.1 also advised the Plaintiff

that after getting released the imported goods the same may be dispatched to its

store at its factory premises at Plot No. 12-A New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad

Kashmir). Accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered the imported goods at the above

place as per the instruction of the Defendant No.1. Similarly, Defendant No.1 also

accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Annex-G/3)

and forwarded the same to the Plaintiff under the cover of the Letter

No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004(Annex-G/4). By the above the Letter

No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004, Defendant No.1 confirmed and assured the

Plaintiff to make the payment under the aforesaid Bill of Exchange on its due date

of 28-06-2004. However, Defendant No.1 failed to pay the amount due under the

Bill of Exchange of US$ 214,130.00 equivalent to Rs, 9,019,498.00 on the due

date of 30-06-2004. Therefore, the aforesaid outstanding amount was converted

into FADB (Finance Against Dishonored Bills) as per the original approval.

10. That in addition to the documents mentioned in para-9 above of this plaint, as

security for the above Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit/FADB, the

Defendant Nos.1 & 5 mortgaged and charged their assets with the Plaintiff.

Details of the mortgaged and hypothecated assets and the documents whereby

said mortgages and charges were created are as under:

A. Mortgages & charges by the Defendant No.1.

i. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Annex – H).

ii. Letter of Hypothecation dated 26.08.1999 (Annex – H/1).

ix. Form X dated 28.08.1999 (Annex – H/2).

x. Certificate of Charge Registration dated 01.09.1999 (Annex – H/2a).

xi. Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/3).

xii. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/4).

xiii. Letter of Hypothecation dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/5).

xiv. Form XVI dated 24.01.2002 (Annex – H/6).

ix. Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Annex – H/7).

xi. General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Annex – H/8).



the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New

Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all present and future



both present and future. Copy of the Lease Deed dated 09-06-1996 deposited in

original with the Plaintiff for creation of equitable mortgage is attached as Annex

(H/3).

B. Mortgage by the Defendant No. 5.

(I). Mortgaged Property:


(II). Documents executed and furnished:

(i). Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (Annex-I).(ii). Mortgage Deed bearing registration No. 3855 registered with the

Sub-Registrar City, Lahore on 16-05-2002 (Annex-I/1). (iii). General Power of Attorney (Annex – I/2).

(iv). Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin evidencing mortgage in favour of the Plaintiff (Annex – I/3). (v). Letter of Continuity of Mortgage dated 25.04.2003 (Annex – I/4).

(vi). Following original sale deeds were deposited with the Plaintiff to create equitable mortgage;

a. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3541 (Annex-I/5),

b. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3538 (Annex-I/6),

c. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3607 (Annex-I/7),

d. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3606 (Annex-I/8),

e. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3539 (Annex-I/9),

f. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City Lahore on 20.03.1982 as Document No 3537 (Annex-I/10).

11. That the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the Defendants No. 6 to 9 also executed

Personal Guarantees (Annex- J to J/2) and the Corporate Guarantee along with

the Letter of Awareness respectively (Annex- J/3 to J/4) in favour of the Plaintiff

Bank in consideration of and as joint security for the Running Finance, Cash

Finance and L/C limit extended to and availed by Defendant No.1 which are

subject matter of this suit.

12. That on maturity of the aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit

mentioned in paras 8 & 9 on 31-03-2002 the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to

renew the same. However, pending formal approval by the Plaintiff to renew the

above-facilities, the same being revolving limits were continued to be availed by

Defendant No.1. Subsequently, the above three facilities were formally renewed

firstly up to 30-06-2003 and then upto 30.06.2004 vide Sanction Advices dated

05-10-2002 and 12.09.2003 respectively. Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002

& 30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the

Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004

respectively and aforesaid Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 are

attached herewith as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3

However, although the above facilities were renewed and utilized by the

Defendants, they failed to execute the documents for renewal on one pretext or

another such as they started raising objections as to the applicable rate of mark-

up. Copies of letters dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002 and 01-02-2003 requesting for

reduction in mark-up and acknowledging their liabilities are attached as Annex-

L/1 and L/2 and L/3. Similarly, vide letter dated 08-02-2003 (Annex-L/4)

Defendants undertook to pay Rs.2.5 Million per month in aggregate against the

mark-up for the year 2002 payable by Defendant No.1 on the above two facilities

as well as by the other companies of the Diamond Group of Industries.

Defendants again vide letter dated 20-02-2003 (Annex-L/5) again undertook that

mark up for the years 2002 and 2003 would be adjusted latest by 31-12-2003 and

31-12-2004 respectively by payment of Rs.2.5 Million per month but they failed

to honor their commitments.

13. That through the letter dated 18-09-2003 (Annex- L/6) Plaintiff forwarded to the

Defendants the aforesaid Sanction Advice dated 12-09-2003 whereby the

aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit were renewed upto 30-

06-2004. By the above letter Plaintiff advised the Defendants to complete

documents and other formalities for the aforesaid renewed facilities. Later on vide

another letter dated 25-09-2003 (Annex- L/7) Defendants were again advised not

only to pay the outstanding markup as on 30-06-2003 amounting to Rs.10.638

Million against the Running Finance and Rs.18.163 Million against the Cash

Finance but also to complete formalities for the renewed facilities. However,

Defendants not only failed to complete the required documents but also vide letter

dated 27-09-2003 (Annex- L/8) refused to accept the aforesaid sanction advice by

wrongly disputing the amount of the aforesaid outstanding markup etc. As the

objections raised in the aforesaid letter dated 27-09-2003 were totally wrong, the

Plaintiff vide its letter dated 16-10-2003 (Annex-L/9) gave comprehensive reply

as well as it was conveyed to the Defendants to corporate and liquidate its

liabilities.

14. That from the above facts, it is clear that all the possible assistance was given and

granted to the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff from time to time as aforesaid by

way of providing Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance Facility and Letter of

Credit Facility as well as their renewal and enhancement. However, Defendant

No.1 as well as other Defendants failed to reciprocate in similar manner and failed

to pay/liquidate all of the aforesaid Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance

Facility and and Letter of Credit Facility/FADB on their due dates of 30-06-2004.

Although as aforesaid the Defendants have been acknowledging their liabilities

from time to time but failed to pay the amounts due under the respective facilities.

Copies of Letters whereby the Defendants acknowledged their liability and

committed to make payments have already been mentioned above and attached

with the plaint.

15. That every effort was made by the Plaintiff Bank to recover the outstanding

amounts from the Defendants but all such efforts were wasted as Defendants

failed to pay the aforesaid liabilities amounting to Rs. 101,391,028.14 as on 30-

06-2005. They were liable to pay the aforesaid amount but failed to pay the same

despite several requests from the Plaintiff Bank as aforesaid. Hence, this suit.

Particulars of the facilities subject matter of the suit as per Section 9(3) of the Ordinance, 2001 are as under:


(ii) Principal amount of finance availed Rs. 3,969,964,743.99by Defendant No.1.

(ii) Principal Amount paid by the Defendant No.1. Rs. 3,922,979,691.30(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the relevant Statement of Account).

(iii) Principal Amount payable (i-ii above) Rs. 49,985,052.69Statement of Account is Annex-M.

(iv) Markup payable upto 30.06.2005 Rs.22,216,664.87

(Statement of Account is Annex M/1).

(v) Markup paid Rs.4,582,646.00

(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the Annex M/1 above).

(viii) Balance mark up upto 30-06-05 (iv-v). Rs. 17,634,018.87

(viii) Amount of Finance principal and markup payable (iii + vi above) . Rs. 67,619,071.56

. It may be noted that the above facility/limit was on revolving basis and the





balance principal amount of Rs.49,985,052.69.


(ii) Principal amount of finance availed Rs. 1,231,467,625.00by Defendant No.1.

(ii) Principal Amount paid by Rs. 1,222,074,450.00 the Defendant No.1. (Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the relevant Statement of Account)

(iii) Principal Amount payable (i-ii above) Rs.9,393,175.00Statement of Account is Annex-N.

(iv) Markup payable upto Rs.30,573,399.48 30.06.2005

(Statement of Account is Annex N/1)

(v) Markup paid Rs.10,213,143.00(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the Annex N/1 above).

(vi) Balance mark up upto 30-06-05 Rs 20,360,256.48 (iv-v).

(ix) Amount of Finance principal Rs.29,753,431.48and markup payable(iii+vi above).

It may be noted that the above facility/limit was on revolving basis and the





balance principal amount of Rs.9,393,175.00

C. FADB of Rs,9,019,498.00.

(ii) Principal amount of finance availed by Defendant No.1. Rs.9,019,498.00

(ii) Principal Amount paid by the Rs. 5,647,750.00Defendant No.1. (Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the relevant Statement of Account)

(iii) Principal Amount payable (i-ii above) Rs.3,371,748.00

Statement of Account is Annex-O.

(iv) Markup payable upto Rs.741,696.10 30.06.2005

(Statement of Account is Annex O/1)

(v) Markup paid Rs.94, 919.00(Dates & Amounts of payments are given in the Annex O/1 above).

(vi) Balance mark up upto 30-06-05 Rs. 646,777.10(iv-v).

(vii) Amount of Finance (principal) Rs.4, 018,525.10and markup payable(iii+vi above).

16. That the cause of the action arose firstly when the Running Finance Facility, Cash

Finance Facility and L/C limit were granted to Defendant No.1, secondly, when

the said facilities were renewed from time to time, thirdly when the FADB was

created against the aforesaid L/C limit and fourthly when the facilities subject

matter of the suit matured on 30-06-2004 but the same were not adjusted/ dues

against the said financial facilities were not paid on their aforesaid maturity date.

Each acknowledgement by the Defendants of their liability has also constituted a

cause of action. The cause of action still continues as the Defendants have failed

to discharge their obligations under various agreements and security

documents/guarantees despite various demands made by the Plaintiff Bank in this

respect.

17. The cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable

Court. Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were disbursed and were

repayable in Lahore. Defendant Nos.1 & 5 to 9 are also having their Registered/

Head offices at Lahore. Property mortgaged by the Defendant No.5 is also

situated at Lahore, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable

Court. All Defendants also reside and work for gains at Lahore. Therefore, this

Honourable Court can adjudicate upon this suit.

19. That the titled suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is valued at Rs.

101,391,028.14 and Court Fee of Rs.15, 000/- has been affixed on this plaint.




a) In the sum of Rs.101, 391,028.14 with all costs, charges and expenses payable






and Corporate Guarantee furnished by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9

respectively as well as sale of all other properties of Defendant Nos.1 to 9.




Court.

c) To attach and appoint receiver(s) of the properties those were

mortgaged/hypothecated/ charged/ pledged by Defendant Nos.1 & 5 with the

Plaintiff Bank and detailed in the paras- 9 & 10 of the plaint.




PLAINTIFF(ALLIED BANK LIMITED)

through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan

TEHSEEN YOUSAFAdvocate High Court


VERIFICATION:-Verified on oath dated ________ on _______ 2005 that contents of paragraphs 1 to 15 above are true to the best of our knowledge and contents of paragraphs 16 to18 above are correct to the best of our information which we believe to be true.

DEPONENT

2)E/Backup/Banking/ABL-Diamond-Polymer(1-11)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

PLA No. 42-B/2005

IN

COS. No.24/2005

titled

Allied Bank Limited…Plaintiff

VERSUS

M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited and Others.

… RESPONDENTS

(S UIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 101,391,028.14)

REPLY by the Plaintiff bank (in the form of replication) under Section 10 (7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant No.1 under Section 10(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to Appear and Defend the Suit.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS:

1. The Application for leave to defend filed by the Defendant completely fails

to comply with mandatory provisions of law as per Section 10 of the

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Ordinance”). Section 10(4) of the Ordinance is

reproduced below for ready reference:

“(4) In the case of a suit for recovery instituted by a financial institution the application for leave to defend shall also specifically state the following:

(a) The amount of finance availed by the defendant from the financial institution; the amounts paid by the defendant to the financial institution and the dates of payments;

(b) the amount of finance and other amounts relating to the finance payable by the defendant to the financial institution up to the date of, institution of the suit;

(c) The amounts of finance and other amounts relating to the finance payable by the defendant to the financial institution up to the date of institution of the suit;

(d) the amount if any which the defendant disputes as payable to the financial institution and facts in support thereof.

Explanation. For the purposes of clause (b) any payment made to a financial institution by a customer in respect of a finance shall be appropriated first against other amounts relating to the finance and the balance, if any, against the principal amount of the finance.”

2. As per this mandatory provision of law the Defendant was required to state

the amount of finance and other amounts relating to finance payable by the

Defendant and the amount, if any, which the Defendant disputes.

In the lengthy application for leave to defend this mandatory provision of

law has been completely ignored. The requirement with regard to

information as required to be provided by sub-section 4 has not been

complied with. In such a situation sub-section 6 of Section 10 lays down

that the Application for leave to defend shall be rejected. Sub-section 6 is


“(6) An application for leave to defend which does not comply with the requirements of sub-section (3), (4) where applicable and (5) shall be rejected, unless the defendant discloses therein sufficient cause for his inability to comply with any such requirement.”

Since the Application for leave to defend has not complied with the

mandatory requirements of Sub-sections 3, 4 and 5, the same be rejected

and the suit be decreed in full.

3. That as required by law quoted above substantial question of law as well as

facts, which require evidence, has to be specifically formulated and stated.

This provision of law has also not been complied with. The application for

Leave to Defend may be rejected and the suit decreed in full.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS:

1. Needs no comment.

2. Denied vehemently. Titled suit is not time barred as alleged. It is merely a

bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason or ground

on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred. Therefore, titled

suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.

3. Denied vehemently. Titled suit is maintainable and is not bad either for

mis-joinder of parties or causes of action as alleged. It is merely a bald

allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason, ground or any

specific provision of law on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be bad

for mis-joinder of parties or causes of action. Therefore, all allegations

contained in para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are

specifically denied word by word and line by line.

4. Denied vehemently. Plaint has been signed and verified in accordance with

the law.

5. Denied vehemently. Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were

disbursed and were repayable in Lahore. Defendant No.1 is also having its

Head office at Lahore. All Defendants including the answering Defendant

also work for gains at Lahore. As stated in the plaint, the cause of action

has also arisen in Lahore that is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of

this Honourable Court. Therefore, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to

adjudicate upon this suit.

6. Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Plaintiff has

neither approached this Honourable Court with un-cleaned hands nor

suppressed any material fact in the plaint. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

the relief claimed in the suit.

7. Denied vehemently. All assertions contained in para under reply being

totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by word and line by

line. Plaintiff or any of its employees has neither committed any breach of

trust nor any act of misappropriation nor manipulated accounts of the

Defendant No.1 as alleged. Similarly, they had committed no violation of

any norms of banking law or practice.

8. Denied Vehemently. Application under reply has not has been properly and

competently signed, filed or instituted on behalf of the Defendant No.1.

9. Denied vehemently. Amount claimed in the titled suit is legally and

lawfully payable by the Defendant No.1.No substantial question of law or

facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled suit has

been raised through the application under reply. Accordingly,

Applicant/Defendant No.1 is not entitled to grant of leave to appear and

defend the titled suit that may be decreed in full.

10. Denied vehemently. Denied that either the suit has been improperly

instituted or that it has been signed, instituted or filed incompetently. It is

reiterated that Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, who has signed the plaint and

instituted the titled suit on behalf of the Plaintiff, is the Chief

Manager/Manager Branch/Branch Manager of the Plaintiff's branch at

Badami Bagh, Lahore. Under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance of 2001, a

Branch Manager is authorized to institute a suit on behalf of a Financial

Institution. Accordingly, the titled suit has been lawfully and authorisedly

instituted.

11. Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in para under reply being


line. In fact, as stated in the plaint, all possible assistance was given and

granted to the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff from time to time by way of

providing various financial facilities including the Running Finance

Facility, Cash Finance Facility and L/C limit/FADB as well as their

renewal and enhancement. However, Defendant No.1 as well as other

Defendants failed to reciprocate in similar manner and they never fulfilled

their obligations under respective agreements and security

documents/guarantees. It is also wrongly stated that the facilities availed by

the Defendant No.1 that are subject matter of the titled suit are linked in any

manner with the facilities availed by the Defendants No.6 to 9.

12. Denied vehemently. All assertions/allegations, except admission regarding

availing of the facilities by the Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff, contained

in para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied

word by word and line by line. Denied that the facilities availed by the

Defendant No.1 that are subject matter of the titled suit are linked in any

manner with the facilities availed by the Defendants No. 5 to 9 despite the

fact that for the purpose of convenience single sanction letters were used to

be issued. However, Defendants No. 1 &, 5 to 9 being separate legal

entities under the law are liable for the facilities availed by them.

13 to 16.

Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in paras under reply being


line. Furthermore, all assertions, allegations and points raised in paras under

reply do not relate to the subject matter of the titled suit. Matter of the

Guarantees issued by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant No. 6 is

subject matter of C.O.S No18/2005 that is also pending before this

Honourable Court. However, correct facts regarding the said Guarantees

issued by the Plaintiff in favour of the customs authorities are given below

briefly to repel and deny the assertions in para under reply;

POSITION REGARDING BANK GUARANTEES:

It is submitted that with regard to the encashment of bank guarantee no loss

whatsoever to the Defendant No.6 has been caused as enumerate below:

a) Bank guarantee for Rs.260.569 Million had been furnished by the

Plaintiff Bank, at the request of the Defendant No.6, to the Customs

Authorities with regard to the goods imported by the Defendant No.6

for Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate. On a demand from them

accompanied by threats of strict legal action, the said Bank

Guarantees were encashed and the above amount was paid to the

Customs Authorities (on behalf of the Defendant No.6).

b) As per the latest law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

encashment of a Bank Guarantee cannot be withheld on any basis

and the guarantee has to be encahsed when called upon by the

beneficiary of the Bank Guarantee.

c) Bank Guarantees were encashed as per the orders of the Supreme

Court of Pakistan as under:

18-02-1999. Supreme Court Order in CM. No.140/99 in the CA. “I

am, therefore, inclined to grant stay against encashment of

bank/Insurance guarantee to the extent the amount which the

petitioners are entitled as rebate on customs duty in terms of

the above E.C.C. decision. The bank guarantee may not be

encashed upto the extent of that amount. The petition for

leave to appeal may be fixed in Court as soon as certified

copy of the order of High Court is made available by the

Petitioners.”

It is submitted that the Bank Guarantees had been

furnished with regard to the entire amount claimed by the

customs authorities, where the dispute before the Supreme

Court was only with regard to one time 25% rebate for one

year claimed by the Defendant Company.

18-10-1999. Leaving the amount of 25% covered by

Insurance Guarantees the Bank Guarantees to the tune

of Rs.260.569 Million were called upon by Customs

authorities and encahsed.

05-06-2000. CA/ 903/999 “Diamond Industries Vs.

Federation of Pakistan”. “Status quo is maintained as

regards recoveries and encashment of Bank Guarantees.” The

Defendant No.6 (Diamond Industries Limited) suppressed the

fact from the Supreme Court that the Bank Guarantees had

been encahsed earlier.

Nothing was done after this order. Even this order

related to one time rebate of 25% on goods imported during

one year only.

The Defendant No.6 has executed documents for this

amount and made part payment. It is estopped from

questioning the encashment of Bank Guarantees.

d) No loss to Defendant No.6 on account of encashment of Bank

Guarantees. The Defendant No.6 had raised some claims with

regard to the concessions available to it with reference to the

Gadoon Amazai benefits/concession granted by the

Government of Pakistan. Out of the above amount the

Defendant No.6 has received a rebate of Rs.63.00 Million. It

will or might have got further amounts on account of rebate if

entitled under the law. If not found entitled then the amount

paid to the Customs Authorities as a result of the encashment

of the above Bank Guarantee would be a valid discharge of its

liability. In either case there is no question of any loss to the

Defendant No.6 on this account. To reiterate, if the Defendant

No.6 is entitled to any further rebate, it will get the refund and

if not the amount paid on account of encashment of Bank

Guarantees on its behalf would be in the discharge of its

liabilities. The Defendant No.6 can therefore have no

grievance and cannot lay any claim on the Plaintiff Bank in

this behalf.

THIS IS A CASE OF ADMITTED LIABILITY.

A. It is admitted by the Defendant No.6 that the guarantees to the

extent of Rs.264,881,541.00 furnished by the Plaintiff Bank

on behalf of the Defendant No.6 were encashed by the

Customs Department (the admitted amounts are

Rs,264,881,514.00. A letter dated 25-06-2003 by the

Defendant Company to the Secretary SBP Committee was

itself attached at page 199 of its Application for Leave to

Defend in C.O.S No.18/2005). As admitted by the Defendant

No.6 in its letter No.DG/02/240 dated 14-09-2002 addressed

to the Plaintiff Bank (at page 210 (Annex-N/8) of the

Application for Leave to Defend in C.O.Sno. 18/2005), the

amount is Rs.265.959 (M).

With this admitted position the liability of the Defendant

No.6 is obvious and clear.

B. The position regarding the orders passed by the Honourable

Supreme Court of Pakistan is further explained below. The

entire case of the Defendant No.6 before the Supreme Court

was with regard to one time rebate of 25% on the value of the

raw material imported for the period preceding one year of

the withdrawal of notification SRO 517(I)/89 dated 03-06-

1989.

This position is clear from the order dated 18-02-1999

passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which

was annexed as Annex-B/1 at page 30 of the application for

Leave to Defend in C.O.S No.18/2005. For the sake of ready

reference the order is reproduced below in full.

“The Learned Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Irfan Qadir and Mr. K.C. Sabir. The learned counsel contends that in team of ECC decision, dated 31-03-1992, petitioners were entitled to at least one time rebate of 25% on the value of raw material imported for the period preceding one year of the withdrawal of notification SRO No.517(I)/89 dated 03-06-1989. It is an admitted position that the notification was withdrawn on 09-05-19991. Therefore, prima facie, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the rebate in customs duty in terms of the above ECC decision.

I am, therefore, inclined to grant stay against encashment of bank/insurance guarantee to the extent of the amount which the petitioners are entitled as rebate on custom duty in terms of the above ECC decision. The bank guarantee may not be encashed upto the extent of that amount. The petition for leave to appeal may be fixed in court as soon as the copy of the order of High Court is made available by the party thereof.”

C. It will kindly be observed that the encashment of

bank/insurance guarantees was stayed only to the extent of

the amount to which the Defendant No.6 was entitled as

rebate on duty i.e. one time rebate of 25% on the value of raw

material imported for the period preceding one year from

withdrawal of notification SRO 517(I)/89 dated 03-06-1989.

The guarantees were got encashsed by the Collector of

Customs accordingly and in strict compliance with the order

of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The case was

finally decided on 25-06-2004 vide judgment of the

Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan placed on record as

Annex-B/2 at page 31 of the documents attached with the

Application of Leave to Defend in C.O.S No.18/2005. The

first paragraph of this order which specifies the point

involved the in Appeal is reproduced below for ready

reference.

“This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the judgment dated 10-02-1999 of a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court through which Constitutional Petition No.1415 of 1997

filed by the appellant for grant of one time relief of 25% of the total duty value of the raw materials on the basis of the similar criteria and formula applied in the case of two other industries namely M/s Alkhair Gadoon and M/s Khyber Plastic Industries has been dismissed.”

Paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 25-06-2003 is also


“23. For the foregoing, this appeal is accepted, decisions already made by the respondents in the matter of determination/assessment of one time compensation in the case of the CBR are hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. The Member Central Board of Revenue is hereby directed to decide afresh the case of the appellant as regards one time relief of 25% to the total duty value of the raw materials on the basis of the same criteria and the parameters applied in the case of M/s Alkhair Gadoon and M/s Khyber Plastic Industries and full benefit should be given in the light of the observations and the facts noted above. As the matter has already been delayed, the needful shall be done within one month from the receipt of this judgment.”

No Bank guarantees were encashed after the date of

this order. The only point of controversy between the

Defendant No.6 and the Customs Department was with regard

to the determination of one time rebate of 25% admissible to

the company. The balance 75% had to be paid in any case.

The Bank Guarantees were for the entire amount of the claim

by the Customs Authorities for good imported.

D. At one stage, the order was passed by the Collector of

Customs determining their entitlement and they received a

sum of Rs.63.00 Million on that account. The disputed

quantum of rebate admissible to them was the matter to be

decided by the customs authorities. If they are found entitled

to any amount it will reimburse to them, beyond that they

would have to pay to the Customs Authorities and the bank

guarantees were encashed accordingly.

E. It is submitted that no valid dispute could be raised by the

Defendant No.6 with regard to the encashment of the bank

guarantees. If it is found entitled for re-imbursement as per

the order of the Court, that has been/would be (may be

already done) given to it and the bank guarantees encashed in

this behalf would be a valid discharge of its liabilities. Any

hue and cry on this point is wholly unreasonable and is almost

rabble rousing.

F. When the encashment of guarantees is admitted on the basis

submitted in the preceding paras, it is therefore admitted

liability of the Defendant No.6, part of which paid and

furnished securities for the amount. The contempt application

filed by the Defendant No.6 also failed. The order dated 15-

10-2002 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is placed on the

file of the Application for Leave to Defend in C.O.S 18/2005

at page 190). This further clarifies that the dispute was only

with regard to one time rebate of 25% on the goods imported

while the Bank Guarantees had been furnished for the entire

amount of customs duty etc. demanded by the Collector

Customs. The encashment of Bank Guarantees to the extent

of 75% could not have been disputed.

17. Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. It is denied

that the Defendant No.1 had rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-10-

2002 or 12-09-2003. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant

No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the said sanction

advices. Therefore, all allegations contained in para under reply are denied

and for this purpose contents of paras 12 & 13 of the plaint are reiterated.

18. Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Therefore, all

allegations contained in para under reply are denied and for this purpose

contents of paras 12 & 13 of the plaint are reiterated.

19 to 25.

All assertions, allegations and points raised in paras under reply do not

relate to the subject matter of the titled suit. Matter of the settlement under

BPD Circular No.29 of 2002 is subject matter of C.O.S No18/2005 that is

also pending before this Honourable Court. However, correct facts are

given below briefly to repel and deny the assertions in para under reply;

a) The case was taken by the Defendants directly to SBP was with

regard to the encashment of Bank Guarantees (explained above in

details). A copy of the circular is enclosed as Mark-A with this

Reply. This circular does not permit a write-off of the liabilities as is

clear from paragraph 6 and 7 of the Circular reproduced below:

“6. Before allowing write-off, all liquid assets including FDRs, Government Securities. Share Certificates etc. held under lien and pledged goods should be realized and sale proceeds thereof appropriated towards the reduction of outstanding liability of the borrower. This should be legally cleared by the bank/NBFI’s legal counsel.

7. The latest valuation of properties/stocks held as security having value of Rs.2.5 million and above indicating their present market value as well as their forced sale value duly assessed by a surveyor/architect, on the approved panel of Pakistan Bank’s Association (PBA), should be produced before the approving authority.”

b) Other provisions of this circular will be brought to the notice

of this Honourable Court at the time of arguments. Where the

amount exceeds Rs.25.00 lacs, provision is made under the

heading of ‘Category-C’ of the Circular which speaks of

‘Forced Sale Value’ which is to be determined by an

independent professional valuer who should be listed on the

panel of valuers maintained by Pakistan Bank’s Association.

Nothing of the sort was done in the present case and the

Defendant No.6 without any basis tried to bring its case

before the Committee of the State Bank of Pakistan. The said

Committee did not find any justification for granting any

relief to the Defendant No.6. However, purely as a matter of

tactical step, the Defendant No.6 obtained letter No. MR/9042

dated 18-01-2005 (Annex-P at page 235 of PLA in C.O.S

No.18/2005) wherein it is stated that the Committee has

‘Noted’ that you (Diamond Industries Limited) and ABL

have agreed to settle the outstanding liabilities as mentioned

therein. In fact there was no such settlement whatsoever

between the Defendant No.6 and the Plaintiff Bank. In fact no

valid dispute existed. Wholly false representation was made

by the Defendant No.6 and only ‘Noted’ by the Committee.

To reiterate it is wholly incorrect to state that any

agreement was reached between the Defendant No.6 and the

Plaintiff Bank. Only ‘Noting’ by State Bank of Pakistan has

no legal force. This was due to some misunderstanding and

misrepresentation by the Defendant Company. It is neither

factually correct nor legally enforceable nor has it any value

whatsoever.

c) As submitted above there is no concept of writing off of the

‘principal’ amount. In the present case enough security is

available with the Plaintiff Bank for realization of its debts

from the Defendant No. 6 for which purpose the suit has been

filed. The correct position was conveyed to the Defendant No.

6 vide letter dated 05-05-2005 Mark-B. A copy of State Bank

Pakistan BSD Circular No.2/99 dated 16-07-1999 which

governs such a situation is enclosed as Mark-C with this

reply to application for Leave to Defend.

It is further submitted that vide the aforesaid BPD

Circular No.2 of 1999 dated 16 July, 1999, State Bank of Pakistan

almost prohibited write off of loans, any claim by the Defendant

No.6 with regard to writing off of the principal amount is therefore

factually incorrect and legally untenable. There was no reason

whatsoever for writing off any portion of the principal amount.

Neither could any functionary make any such concession in that

behalf nor was there any consideration or reason for the same. Any

claim by the Defendants that any amount was to be written off is

without any factual and legal basis and the averments made need

summary rejection.

26. Denied vehemently. Furthermore, titled suit has been filed for recovery of

over dues and not as retaliation of any notice.

27. Contents as stated being wrong are denied. Statement of Account and

summary attached with the application under reply are fabricated/

concocted/ discrepant. Particulars under section 10(4) have not been given

in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law. Correct and

authenticated Statements of Account have been attached with the Plaint.

Similarly, particulars under section 9(3) given in para 15 of the plaint are

correct and all amounts claimed in the suit are legal. Applicant is not

entitled to any compensation as alleged.

28 & 29. Denied vehemently. No additional document can be placed on

record of the case.

Reply on merit.

(1). Needs no comment.

(2). Denied vehemently. It is submitted that Mr. Raza Saleem Khan who has

signed the plaint and instituted the titled suit on behalf of the Plaintiff is the

Branch Manager of the Plaintiff's branch at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara,

Lahore. Under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance of 2001, the Branch Manager

can institute a suit on behalf of a Financial Institution. Accordingly, the

titled suit has been lawfully and authorisedly instituted. The said Manager

is also conversant with the facts of the titled case.


(4). Contents of the para under reply are denied. As stated in the para-4 of the

plaint, Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as

guarantors by executing personal guarantees and corporate guarantee


facilities extended to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff

Bank. The said Guarantees are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void

or of no legal effect and value as alleged. Similarly, by not denying creation

of mortgages of their properties by the Defendants Nos. 1 & 5 legality and

enforceability of the said mortgages had been admitted. Furthermore,

neither enforcement of guarantees nor the titled suit is barred by time.

(5). Denied vehemently. Correct address of the Defendant No.5 has been given

in the heading of the plaint.

(6). Denied vehemently:-

Contents as stated are denied vehemently. No illegality whatsoever was

committed by the Plaintiff as alleged and every thing has been lawfully

done.

(ii) Contents as stated are denied vehemently. No illegality whatsoever

was committed by the Plaintiff as alleged and pledged stocks have

not lost their value due to any act of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no

illegal mark up or mark up on mark up has been charged as alleged.

(iii) Statements of the account attached with the plaint are true and same

are neither fabricated, concocted or discrepant nor it contains false or

unauthorized debits etc. No illegal amount or mark up or mark up on

mark up has been charged or recovered as alleged. All amounts have

been charged in accordance with the agreements. As stated in plaint

disbursement was made. Further no illegal mark up has been charged

as alleged.

(7). Needs no comments.

(8). Denied vehemently. Correct facts have been stated in para 8 of the plaint

the contents whereof are reiterated to deny wrong facts mentioned in para

under reply.

(9). All allegations contained in para under reply being totally wrong and

baseless are specifically denied word by word and line by line. Plaintiff

never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. Contents of para 9 of plaint

are reiterated. No trust has been breached by the Plaintiff. None of the

documents mentioned in para 9 of the plaint is fabricated, doctored, forged

or misused by the Plaintiff as alleged;

(i). Denied. All allegations contained in para under reply being

totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by

word and line by line. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or

unlawful manner. All of the documents mentioned in para 9

of the plaint were executed by the Defendant No.1 on the

dates given thereon, are legally enforceable and the same are

not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para

under reply. Denied that any blank document was obtained.

All documents were signed on the dates given thereon, were

not blank and are legally enforceable and not invalid, void or

of no legal effect or without value for any alleged reason.

Furthermore, by virtue of section 18(3) of the Ordinance of

2001, said documents are legally enforceable and are not

invalid or void for any alleged reason.

(ii). All documents conform to the sanction letter.

(iii). All allegations contained in para under reply being totally

wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by word and

line by line. Mark up has been charged in accordance with the

agreements. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful

manner.

(iv). Denied vehemently.

(v). Denied vehemently.

(vi). Denied vehemently.

(10). All allegations contained in para under reply being totally wrong and


never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. All of the documents

mentioned in para 10(A) & (B) of the plaint were executed by the

Defendant Nos.1 & 5 respectively. The said documents as a well as

mortgages created thereby are legally enforceable and the same are not

unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under reply.

Neither any blank documents were obtained nor are same fabricated.

Furthermore, under law, a mortgage being transfer of interest in a specific

property as security for a loan continued to be legally enforceable.

11. All allegations contained in para under reply being totally wrong and


never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. All of the personal and

corporate guarantees mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by

the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as by the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9

respectively. The said guarantees are legally enforceable and the same are

not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under reply.

All of the aforesaid guarantees are legally enforceable and an out right

decree can be passed against the Defendants on the basis thereof without

recording any evidence:

a). Denied vehemently. Guarantees have been furnished for the

Purchase Prices payable under the agreements, which include

mark up.

b). Denied vehemently. By the Corporate Guarantee attached

with the plaint, facility of the Demand Finance availed by the

Defendant No.6 from the Plaintiff which is the subject matter

of C.O.S No.18/2005 was not guaranteed.



always fulfilled its promises made to the Defendants. It is submitted that the

facilities subject matter of the suit were on revolving basis. It is further

submitted that on maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and

L/c limit/FADB all Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same.

Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the

Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of

limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004 respectively and the

Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are

attached with the plaint as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3. The Defendants

utilized the said renewed facilities. Copies of letters dated 12-07-2002, 19-

11-2002 and 01-02-2003 requesting for reduction in mark-up and

acknowledging their liabilities are attached with the plaint as Annex-L/1

and L/2 and L/3. Also denied that the Defendants rejected the Sanction

Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 but they merely requested for the

reduction of mark up rate. Therefore, mark up is payable by the Defendants

and the titled suit is also not barred by time. It is again reiterated that

financial facilities to the customers are granted by the banks as per usual

banking practice, their internal regulations and in accordance with the

prudential regulations issued by SBP and it is not necessary that facilities

should always be provided as per requirement and request of customers.



never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. It is further submitted that on

maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all

Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions

dated 08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1

for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto

30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated

05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are attached with the plaint

as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3. To deny the contents of para under

reply, the contents of para 13 of plaint are reiterated.

14. Denied vehemently. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner

and it never caused prejudice, harm, damage, injuries to the Defendants as

alleged. To deny the contents of para under reply, the contents of para 14 of

plaint are reiterated.

15. Contents of para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are

specifically denied word by word and line by line. Amounts mentioned in

para 15 of the plaint are legally payable by the defendants. To further deny

contents of para under reply, the contents of para 15 of plaint are reiterated.

Correct particulars of the amounts payable by the Defendants are given in

para 15 of the plaint. Defendant No.1 has not given particulars under

section 10(4) of the Ordinance of 2001 as well as has not given any reason

for not giving the said particulars. Therefore, under law application under

reply is liable to be dismissed and an outright decree is liable to be passed

for the suit amounts.

16. Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against the Defendants

and the plaint discloses the same. Also denied that the titled suit is time

barred.

17. Denied vehemently. This Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the titled suit.

18. Denied vehemently.

REPLY TO COUNTER CLAIM

(A). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful

manner and it never caused prejudice, harm, damages, injuries to the

Defendants as alleged.

(B). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful

manner and it never ruined the business of the Defendants as

alleged.

(C). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful

manner as alleged. All allegations contained in para under reply

being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by

word and line by line.

(D). Denied vehemently. Answering Defendant is not entitled to any

claim of damages/compensation of Rs. 100.00 million or for any

other amount as alleged.

It is further submitted that the aforesaid counter claim is not

maintainable for the following reasons:

I. No court fee has been affixed on the application under reply

for the counter claim,

II. This Honourable Court exercising its jurisdiction under the

Ordinance of 2001 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any

claim for any alleged compensation and damages.

In view of the above facts, for the reasons stated in the Preliminary

Submissions/Objections as well as that the Defendant has not raised any

Substantial Questions of law and facts necessitating recording of the evidence for

disposal of the titled suit, it is respectfully prayed that the application under reply

may kindly be rejected and the suit of the Plaintiff Bank may kindly be decreed

out rightly against the Defendants.

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate

Supreme Court of Pakistan

VERIFICATION:

It is verified on oath at __________ on __________ 2006 that the contents of the paras 1 to 15 of Reply on Merits and Reply of Counter Claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the contents of Preliminary Submissions/Objections, Reply to Preliminary Objections and paragraphs of 16 to

18 of Reply on Merits are believed to be correct based on information received by me and believed by me to be correct and true.

DEPONENT


PLA No. 45-B/2005

IN

COS. No.24/2005

titled


VERSUS


… RESPONDENTS


REPLY by the Plaintiff bank (in the form of replication) under Section 10 (7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 under Section 10(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to Appear and Defend the Suit.




lawfully payable by the answering Defendants. No substantial question of

law or facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled suit

has been raised through the application under reply. Accordingly,

Applicants/ answering Defendants are not entitled to grant of leave to

appear and defend the titled suit which may be decreed in full.









instituted.



line. Plaintiff or any of its employees has not committed any of the alleged

illegal acts. Similarly, Plaintiff has neither concealed any fact nor

committed fraud, mal administration nor made violation of any norms of

banking law or practice etc. Therefore, titled suit is not liable to be

dismissed as alleged.

5. Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has neither committed fraud, cheating, forgery

and misrepresentation etc nor its behavior is disgusting etc. Plaintiff has

neither approached this Honourable Court with un-cleaned hands nor

suppressed any material fact in the plaint. All assertions contained in para

under reply being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word

by word and line by line.

6. Denied vehemently. Titled suit is not time barred as alleged.

7. Denied vehemently. Neither any additional document can be placed on record of the case nor the Applicants allowed to record evidence or made further submissions.

8. Denied vehemently. Suit is neither mala fide nor through the titled suit

Plaintiff intends to recover illegal amounts. Similarly, titled suit is not

frivolous or vexatious as alleged.


10. Contents as stated are denied. Corporate Guarantee attached with the plaint is legally enforceable under law;

a. Needs no comments.

b. Denied vehemently. Corporate Guarantee attached with the plaint has been lawfully and authorisedly executed is legally enforceable under law.

c. Needs no comments.

d. Denied vehemently. By the Corporate Guarantee attached with the plaint, facility of the Demand Finance availed by the

Defendant No.12 from the Plaintiff which is the subject matter of C.O.S No.18/2005 was not guaranteed. Therefore, said guarantee has not attached with the said suit.

e. Denied vehemently.

11. It is clarified that in C.O.S No 18/2005 and C.O.S No 25/2005 pending

before this Honourable Court and in the suit pending before the learned

Banking Court, Lahore, the sums of Rs. 253.652 million, Rs. 96,709

million and Rs. 18.264 million have been claimed. Subject matters of the

said suits are totally different from the titled suit.

12. Contents being incorrectly stated are denied. No incorrect fact has been

given in the respective suits. Subject matter of C.O.S No. 18/2005 is totally

different from the titled suit. Sanction letter of the facility that is subject

matter of C.O.S No. 18/2005 has been attached therewith.

13. Denied vehemently. Contents of PLA filed by the Defendant No.6 in C.O.S

No. 18/2005 cannot be read in this suit as subject matter of the both suits is

totally different from each others.

14. Contents as stated are denied. Corporate Guarantee attached with the plaint

is legally enforceable under law and a decree against the answering

Defendants is liable to be passed.

Reply on merit.










(4). Contents of the para under reply are denied. Answering Defendants stood

as guarantors by executing Corporate Guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff

Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to and availed by

Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank. The said Guarantee is legally

enforceable and is not invalid, void or of no legal effect and value as

alleged. It is denied that the Defendant No.1 had rejected terms of sanction

letters dated 05-10-2002 or 12-09-2003. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the

plaint, Defendant No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the

said sanction advices.

Enforcement of the Corporate Guarantee is also not barred by time.

(5). All allegations contained in para under reply are denied.

(i) Denied vehemently. It is further submitted that on maturity of

the facilities under sanction letter dated 9-04-2001 all

Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies

of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the

Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the Plaintiff for

renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and

30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated

05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are attached

with the plaint as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3.

(ii) Denied vehemently. Enforcement of the Corporate Guarantee

or other Guarantees is not barred by time.

(iii) Denied vehemently. It is denied that the Defendant No.1 had

rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-10-2002 or 12-09-

2003. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant

No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the said

sanction advices.

(iv) Denied vehemently. Particulars of the partners of the

Defendant No. 5 has been correctly given in the plaint

(6). Denied vehemently.





(11). Denied vehemently. Contents of para 11 of the plaint are reiterated.

(12). Denied vehemently. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant

No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the said sanction

advices. Contents of paras 12 & 13 of the plaint are reiterated.

(13) Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Also denied

that the Defendant No.1 had rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-10-

2002 or 12-09-2003. Therefore, all allegations contained in para under

reply are denied and for this purpose contents of paras 12 to 14 of the plaint

are reiterated.

(14) Denied vehemently. No illegality whatsoever was committed by the

Plaintiff as alleged and every thing has been lawfully done. Plaintiff never

acted in any illegal or unlawful manner and it never caused prejudice, harm,

damage, injuries to the Defendants as alleged. To deny the contents of para

under reply, the contents of para 14 of plaint and are reiterated.

(15). Denied vehemently. Amounts mentioned in para 15 of the plaint are legally

payable by the defendants. To further deny contents of para under reply, the

contents of para 15 of plaint are reiterated.

(16). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against the Defendants

and the plaint discloses the same. Also denied that the titled suit is time

barred.



In view of the above facts that the answering Defendants have not raised any






through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate


VERIFICATION:

It is verified on oath at __________ on __________ 2006 that the contents of the paras 1 to 15 of Reply on Merits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the contents of Reply to Preliminary Objections and paragraphs of 16 to 18 of Reply on Merits are believed to be correct based on information received by me and believed by me to be correct and true.

DEPONENT


PLA No. 43-B/2005

IN

COS. No.24/2005

titled


VERSUS


… RESPONDENTS


REPLY by the Plaintiff bank (in the form of replication) under Section 10 (7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 10(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to Appear and Defend the Suit.




lawfully payable by the answering Defendants. No substantial question of

law or facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled suit

has been raised through the application under reply. Accordingly,

Applicants/ answering Defendants are not entitled to grant of leave to

appear and defend the titled suit that may be decreed in full.


instituted or that it has been signed or instituted or filed incompetently. It is







instituted.

8. Denied vehemently. All personal Guarantees executed by the answering

Defendants are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void or of no legal

effect and value as alleged. Said Guarantees are also not illegal or unlawful

either under section 32(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 or under any

other law but are valid. Answering Defendants have executed the said

guarantees in their individual capacities and cannot deny their liabilities

thereunder.

5. Denied vehemently. All personal Guarantees executed by the answering

Defendants are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void or of no legal

effect and value as alleged. Said Guarantees are also not illegal or unlawful

either under section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 or under any other law but

are valid.

6. Denied vehemently. All Guarantees were signed on the dates given thereon,

were not blank and are legally enforceable and not invalid, void or of no

legal effect or without value for any alleged reason. Furthermore, by virtue

of section 18(3) of the Ordinance of 2001, said guarantees are legally

enforceable and are not invalid or void for any alleged reason.

7. Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in para under reply being


line. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. Personal

Guarantees mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by the

Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. It is denied that the Defendant No.3 did not sign the

Guarantee attached with the plaint. The Plaintiff neither misused any

document to fabricate her guarantee nor breached the trust of the Defendant

No.3 as alleged. The said guarantee is legally enforceable and the same is

not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under reply.



line. Plaintiff has not committed any of the alleged illegal acts. Similarly,

Plaintiff has neither concealed any fact nor committed fraud, mal

administration nor made violation of any norms of banking law or practice

etc. Therefore, titled suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.

9. Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has neither committed fraud, cheating, forgery

and misrepresentation etc nor its behavior is disgusting etc. Similarly,

neither Plaintiff approached this Honourable Court with un-cleaned hands

nor the plaint deserves to be dismissed as alleged. All assertions contained

in para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied

word by word and line by line.

10. Denied vehemently. Titled suit has been filed within the period of

limitation prescribed under law and is not time barred as alleged. It is

merely a bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason

or ground on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred.

Therefore, titled suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.

11. Denied vehemently. Contents of the para under reply are denied.

Answering Defendants stood as guarantors by executing Personal

Guarantees in favour of the Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial

facilities extended to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff

Bank. The said Guarantees are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void,

discharged or of no legal effect and value as alleged. Enforcement of the

said Personal Guarantees is o not barred by time.

12. Denied vehemently. No additional document can be placed on record of the case.

13. Denied vehemently. Suit is neither mala fide etc nor through the titled suit



Reply on merit.










(4). Contents of the para under reply are denied. Answering Defendants stood

guarantors by executing Personal Guarantees in favour of the Plaintiff Bank

as security for and in consideration of the financial facilities extended to

and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank. The said

Guarantees are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void or of no legal

effect and value as alleged. It is denied that the Defendant No.1or the

answering Defendants had rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-10-

2002 or 12-09-2003. It is further submitted that on maturity of the Running

Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all Defendants requested

the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002 &

30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the

Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and

30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 &

12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are attached with the plaint as Annexures

K, K /1, K /2 & K /3. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant

No.1 availed and utilized the facilities that were approved through the said

sanction advices. Therefore, Enforcement of the said Personal Guarantees is

also not barred by time as alleged.

Further submitted and reiterated that the Personal Guarantees

mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by the Defendant Nos. 2

to 4 and the said Guarantees were signed on the dates given thereon and

were not blank. It is denied that the Defendant No.3 did not sign the

Guarantee attached with the plaint. The Plaintiff neither misused any

document to fabricate her guarantee nor the same is false, forged or

concocted as alleged. The said guarantee is legally enforceable and the

same is not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under

reply.

(5). Denied. Correct address of the Defendant No.5 has been given in the

heading of the plaint.

(6). Denied vehemently. Amount claimed in the titled suit is legally and

lawfully payable by the answering Defendants.


(8). Denied vehemently. Facilities subject matters of the suit were granted to the

Defendant No. 1 inter alia on the request of the answering Defendants who

also stood guarantors for the said facilities.


Defendant No. 1 inter alia on the request of the answering Defendants who

also stood guarantors for the said facilities. All documents mentioned in

para 9 of the plaint are in the knowledge of the answering Defendants. They

executed Personal Guarantees as security for the facilities availed by the

Defendant No.1 under the said documents. Therefore, Applicants are liable

for the suit amounts.


(11). Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in para under reply being


line. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. Personal

Guarantees mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by the

Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The said guarantees are legally enforceable and the

same are not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para

under reply. All of the aforesaid guarantees are legally enforceable and an

out right decree can be passed against the Defendants on the basis thereof

without recording any evidence:

a). Denied vehemently. Guarantees have been furnished for the

Purchase Prices payable under the agreements, which include

mark up.

b). Denied vehemently. No blank, undated and unfilled guarantee

or document was obtained.

c). Denied vehemently. Neither any illegal document was

obtained nor the Plaintiff has misused any document.

d). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has not committed any breach of

trust of the Applicants.

(12). Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. All personal

Guarantees executed by the answering Defendants are legally enforceable

and are not discharged, invalid, void or of no legal effect and value as

alleged. Answering Defendants have executed the said guarantees in their

individual capacities and cannot deny their liabilities thereunder.


(14). Denied vehemently. Contents of para14 of the plaint are reiterated.


(16). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against the Defendants

and the plaint discloses the same.



In view of the above facts that the answering Defendants have not raised any






through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate


VERIFICATION:


DEPONENT


PLA No. 44-B/2005

IN

COS. No.24/2005

titled


VERSUS


… RESPONDENTS


REPLY by the Plaintiff bank (in the form of replication) under Section 10 (7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant No. 5 under Section 10(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to Appear and Defend the Suit.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS

OF LAW AND FACTS:

1. Needs no comment.2. Denied vehemently. Amount claimed in the titled suit is legally and

lawfully payable by the answering Defendant etc. No substantial question

of law or facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled

suit has been raised through the application under reply. Accordingly,

Applicant/ answering Defendant is not entitled to grant of leave to appear

and defend the titled suit that is liable to be decreed in full.









instituted.

4. Denied vehemently. Reconstruction of the Defendant No.5 as alleged does

not affect legality and validity of the mortgage created by the Defendant

firm.

5. Denied vehemently. As stated above, reconstruction of the Defendant No.5

does not affect legality and validity of the mortgage created by the

Defendant firm. Even otherwise, as per own statement of the Defendant

No.5 made in para 4 of the Preliminary Objections, the person(s) who had

signed mortgage document and created mortgage on behalf of the

Defendant No.1in favour of the Plaintiff were partners of the firm when the

said mortgage was created. It is also denied that the suit the titled suit is bad

for non joinder or misjoinder of the necessary or proper parties. Therefore,

all assertions and allegations contained in para under reply being totally

wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by word and line by line.

Plaintiff has not committed any of the alleged illegal acts.

6. Denied vehemently. Mortgage created by the Defendant No.5 is legally

enforceable and is not invalid, void or of no legal effect and value as

alleged. Power of Attorney attached with the plaint as Annexure I/2 is also

not invalid or void as it was executed by late Mian Ejaz Shaffi on behalf of

the Defendant Firm and not in his personal capacity. Memorandum of

Deposit of Title Deed was signed on behalf of the answering Defendant on

the date given thereon, the same was not blank and is legally enforceable

and not invalid for any alleged reason. Therefore, the Defendants No. 5 is

liable for the liabilities of the Defendant No.1against the Plaintiff having

secured the same by mortgaging its property with the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, plaint is not liable to be rejected.

7. Denied vehemently. Titled suit is not time barred as alleged. It is merely a

bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason or ground

on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred. Therefore, titled

suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.

8. Denied vehemently. Suit is neither mala fide nor through the titled suit



9. Denied vehemently. Plaint is not barred by any law as alleged. It is merely

a bald allegation without mentioning any provision of law under which

plaint is alleged to be barred. Similarly, plaint also discloses cause of action

against the answering Defendant.

Reply on merit.

(1). Needs no comment.(2). Denied vehemently. It is submitted that Mr. Raza Saleem Khan who has



Lahore. Under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance of 2001, a Branch Manager





(4). Contents of the para under reply are denied. Mortgage created by the

Defendant No. 5 is legally enforceable and is not invalid, void or of no

legal effect and value as alleged. Defendant No.5 created the said mortgage

itself and its partners merely executed documents on its behalf. The said

mortgage is legally enforceable and is not invalid or void having been

lawfully created.

(5). Denied. Correct address of the Defendant No.5 has been given in the

heading of the plaint.

(6). Denied vehemently. Amounts mentioned in para 6 of the plaint and claimed

in the titled suit are legally and lawfully payable by the answering

Defendant etc.




Defendant No. 1 inter alia on the request of the Defendant No. 5 which also

mortgaged its property as security for the said facilities.

(10). Denied vehemently. All documents mentioned in para 10 of the plaint and

attached thereto and are legally enforceable and not invalid, void or of no

legal effect or without value for any alleged reason.


(12). Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Facilities

subject matters of the suit were granted to the Defendant No. 1 inter alia on

the request of the Defendant No.5, which also mortgaged its property as

security for the said facilities.




(16). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against all Defendants

including the answering Defendant and the plaint discloses the same.

(17). Denied vehemently. This Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the titled suit as the cause of action against the Defendants has arisen

at Lahore.

(18). Denied vehemently. Amount claimed in the titled suit is legally and

lawfully payable by the answering Defendant etc. Accordingly, titled suit

that is liable to be decreed in full.

In view of the above facts that the answering Defendant has not raised any




out rightly against the Defendant.


through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate


VERIFICATION:


DEPONENT


C.M No.______/2005

IN

C.O.S No. ___________/2005

Titled

Allied Bank Limited.……..Plaintiff/Applicant

VERSUS

M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & Others

….Defendants/Respondents

A PPLICATION under Section 16 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Order 38 Rules 5, 6 & 7, Order 40 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC read with all other enabling provisions of law.


1. That the Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.101, 391,028.14 against

the Defendants/Respondents mentioned in the plaint, which is pending

before this Honourable Court. Defendant Nos.1 & 5 have mortgaged,

hypothecated and pledged with the Plaintiff their respective properties and

assets detailed in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the plaint and also mentioned

below:

A. Assets mortgaged, hypothecated and pledged by Defendant No.1.

(I) Project situated upon the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing

Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad

Kashmir) together with all present and future constructions,

factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc. constructed and

installed thereon as well as all current assets, all book debts and its

undertakings both present and future.

(II) "Pledged stocks lying at the two premises situated at Bara Dari

Road, Shahdrah and Mauza Molanwal 23 K.M Main Multan Road

and detailed in the two Stocks Reports attached as Annex- F/3 &

Annex- F/4 to the plaint.

B. Assets mortgaged by the Defendant No.5.

‘All that Piece and Parcel of land measuring 6 kanal ( as per measurement 225 sq ft per marla) in Khasra Nos. 331/237/3, 330/237/3, 333/237/3, 332/237/3, 339/237/3, 340/237/3 Khewat No 176 & Khatooni Nos. 251, 248, 254/1, 246, 238 and 239 as per Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 situated at Mauza Fatehpuri within Municipal Limits of MCL, Lahore together with all present and future constructions, fittings, installations machinery and equipment etc.

2. That Defendants/Respondents having come to know of the filing of the suit,

are taking surreptitious steps to sell the mortgaged, hypothecated and

pledged properties and assets, to remove the goods/assets of the Defendant

No.1 as well as to alienate mortgaged assets of the Defendant No.1.

3. That if the Respondents/Defendants sell the aforesaid properties, goods and

assets specified in the plaint as well as in para 1 above etc, not only the

Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss but also the process of law and the

decree that may be passed by this Honourable Court shall be frustrated.

4. It is submitted that the Respondents/Defendants in violation of all their

legal, contractual and moral obligations did not repay due amount to the

Plaintiff. Presently on 30-6-2005 a sum of Rs.101, 391,028.14 is due from

the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be

pleased to:

i) make order for attachment before judgment of the properties and

assets of Defendant No.1 mentioned below:

A. Assets mortgaged, hypothecated and pledged by Defendant No.1.

(I) Project situated upon the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft

bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area,

Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all present and future

constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings

etc. constructed and installed thereon as well as all current

assets, all book debts and its undertakings both present and

future.

(II) "Pledged stocks lying at the two premises situated at Bara

Dari Road, Shahdrah and Mauza Molanwal 23 K.M Main

Multan Road and detailed in the two Stocks Reports

attached as Annex- F/3 & Annex- F/4 to the plaint.

B. Assets mortgaged by the Defendant No.5.

‘All that Piece and Parcel of land measuring 6 kanal ( as per measurement 225 sq ft per marla) in Khasra Nos. 331/237/3, 330/237/3, 333/237/3, 332/237/3, 339/237/3, 340/237/3 Khewat No 176 & Khatooni Nos. 251, 248, 254/1, 246, 238 and 239 as per Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 situated at Mauza Fatehpuri within Municipal Limits of MCL, Lahore together with all present and future constructions, fittings, installations machinery and equipment etc.

ii) make an order restraining the Respondents from selling or disposing

of the above mortgaged, hypothecated and pledged properties and

assets of Defendant Nos.1& 5;

iii) make an order for appointment of receiver before judgment to take

over the mortgaged properties and assets of the Defendant Nos.1& 2

and running of the factories of the Defendant No.1 as per details

given below:

Project situated upon the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing

Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad

Kashmir) together with all present and future constructions,

factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc. constructed and

installed thereon as well as all current assets, all book debts and its

undertakings both present and future.

iv) authorizing the Applicant Bank and/or the Receiver to post security

guards at the aforesaid factory premises of the Defendant No.1.

v) to appoint Local Commissioner to make a complete inventory of all

machinery, plants, stocks and other movable and immovable assets

of Respondent No.1 and file the same in this Honourable Court.

vi) to make an order restraining the Respondents No.2 to 12 from

selling or disposing of their personal assets and properties ;

vii) any other order deemed fit and proper may also kindly be passed by

this Honourable Court.

APPLICANT (Allied Bank Ltd.)

through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM Senior Advocate


2)E/Backup/Banking/ABL-Diamond-Polymer(13-15)

Syed Mujtaba Gillani, Relationship Manager, Assets Management Branch,

ABL199Upper Mall, Lahore.

Dear Sir,

Subject: Filing of suits against (I) M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & 9 Others, (II) M/s Shaffi Chemical Industries & 13 others & (III) M/s Crescent Industrial (Gadoon) Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited & 11 others.

Please refer to the captioned suits. For the purpose of filing of the suits we require

expenses as per details below;

(I) M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & 9 Others.

i) Court Fee. Rs. 16,000.00

ii) Filing and copying expenses of 12 sets. Rs. 11,000.00

Total Rs. 27,000.00

(II) M/s Crescent Industrial (Gadoon) Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited & 11 others.

(i) Court Fee. Rs. 16,000.00

(ii) Filing and copying expenses of 14 sets. Rs. 10,500.00

Total Rs. 26,500.00

(II) M/s Shaffi Chemical Industries & 13 others.

(i) Court Fee. Rs. 16,000.00

(ii) Filing and copying expenses of 17 sets. Rs.12, 500.00

Total Rs. 28,500.00

Kindly arrange to pay the above amounts in cash.

For Raja




a) In the sum of Rs.101,391,028.14 with all costs, charges and expenses payable






and Corporate Guarantee furnished by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 9 to 11.




Court.

c) To appoint receiver(s) of the properties that were mortgaged/hypothecated/

charged/ pledged by Defendant Nos.1 & 5 with the Plaintiff Bank and detailed in

the paras- 9 & 10 of the plaint.




Name of the Customer:

S.N Type of Finance Outstanding Amount i) _______ Finance of Rs. a)Principal Rs.

b)Markup Rs. Total:- Rs.

ii) _______ Finance of Rs. a)Principal Rs. b)Markup Rs. Total:- Rs.

iiii) FADB a)Principal Rs. b) Markup Rs

Total: Rs. Grand Total Rs.

A. ___________ Finance of Rs.______________.

a) Agreement for Financing dated ________. Under the terms of the

Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. was payable in ________Monthly

Quarterly/Bi-annual installments commencing from________ and ending

on_______ or in lump sum on _______.

b) Promissory Note dated _______ for Rs._______.

c) Letter of Hypothecation dated ____________.

B. _______ Finance of Rs.

a) Agreement for Financing dated ________. Under the terms of the

Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. was payable in ________Monthly

Quarterly/Bi-annual installments commencing from________ and ending

on_______ or in lump sum on _______.

b) Promissory Note dated _______ for Rs._______.

c) Letter of Hypothecation dated ____________.

d) Letter of Pledge dated ________. Pledged stocks are lying at the two premises

situated at ______________________

A. Mortgages & charges by the Customer.

i. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated_______ .

ii. Letter of Hypothecation dated_______ .

iii. Form X dated ________________.

iv Certificate of Charge Registration ______________

v. Deed of Floating Charge dated_______________ .

vi. General power of Attorney dated__________________________________________________________________________________.



the land measuring _____________________ bearing Plot No._______ situated

at____________________________ together with all present and future



both present and future. Copies of the Sale Deed/Lease Deed dated

_________________ was deposited in original with the Plaintiff for creation of

equitable mortgage.

Mortgage by ___________

Mortgaged Property:

Documents.

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

Personal Guarantees.

i.

ii.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

NOTE C.O.S. No.24/2005

ABL v/s Diamond Polymer (Pvt.) Limited & Others

1. Suit Amount. Rs.101,391,028.14

2. Facilities sued: Para 6 pg 3 of Plaint

i) Running Finance of Rs.50.0 M a)Principal Rs. 49,985,052.69b)Markup Rs. 17,634,018.87 Total:- Rs.67,619,071.56




3. Sanction Advicedt 9-04-2001 Annex- D pg 26 –34 of

plaint.

4. Documents

A. Running Finance of Rs.50.0 M Para 9 A pg 3 of Plaint.

a) Agreement for Financing dt. 10-04-2001 Annex-E pg 35-38 of Plaint.

b) Promissory Note dt10-04-2001 Annex-E/1pg-39-40of Plaint.

c) Letter of Hypothecation dt. 10-04-2001 Annex-E/2pg-39-40of Plaint.

Statement of Accounts.

Principal. Annex- M pg 205-753 of Plaint.

Mark up. Annex- M/1 pg754 of Plaint.

Amounts claimed.

Rs.67,619,071.56 Para 6 pg 3 of Plaint.

Particulars under section 9(3) para 15 A pg 8 of plaint

B Cash Finance of Rs.30.0 M Para 9 B pg 3 of Plaint.

a) Agreement for Financing dt. 10-04-2001 Annex-F pg 43-46 of Plaint.

b) Promissory Note dt10-04-2001 Annex-F/1pg 47-48of Plaint.

c) Letter of Pledge dt. 10-04-2001 Annex-F/2pg-49-51of Plaint.

d) Stock Reports Annex-F/3&F/4pg-49-51of Plaint.


Principal. Annex-Npg755-806 of Plaint.

Mark up. Annex-N/1 pg 807 of Plaint. Amounts claimed.

Rs. 29,753,431.48 Para 6 pg 3 of Plaint.

Particulars under section 9(3) para 15 B pg 9 of plaint

C. FADB/Lc(sight/DA of Rs.150.0M Para 9 C pg 3 of Plaint.

a) Agreement for Financing dt. 10-04-2001 Annex-G pg 55-58 of Plaint.

b) Promissory Note dt10-04-2001 Annex-G/1pg 59-60of Plaint.


Principal. Annex-O-pg808-809of Plaint.

Mark up. Annex-O/1 pg 810 of Plaint. Amounts claimed.

Rs. 4,018,525.10 Para 6 pg 3 of Plaint.

Particulars under section 9(3) para 15 C pg 9-10 of plaint.

5. Mortgages & Charges. para 10 pg-5 of Plaint.

A. Charge/ Mortgage by Defendant No.1. para 10A pg-5 of Plaint.

Documents Annex-H –H/8 pg 65-83 of Plaint.

Mortgaged/Charged Assets. para 10A pg-5 of Plaint.

Land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at

New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all

present and future constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures

and fittings etc. constructed and installed thereon as well as all

current assets, all book debts and its undertakings both present and

future.

Copy of the Lease Deed dt 09-06-1996 deposited in original with the Plaintiff for creation of equitable mortgage. AnnexH/9pg-84-97of Plaint

B. Charge/ Mortgage by Defendant No.5. para10Bpg-6of plaint.

Documents Annex-I–I/4 pg 98-121 of Plaint.

Mortgaged/Charged Assets. para 10 B pg-6 of Plaint.


Copies of 6 original sale deeds Deposited for creation of equitable mortgage. Annex-I/5–I/10 pg 122-155 of Plaint.

6 A. Personal Guarantees by theDefendant Nos.2 to 4 para11 pg 6 of plaint

Annex- J-J/2 pg 156-161 of plaint.

6B. Corporate Guarantees & letters

of awareness by the Defendant Nos.6 to 9 para11 pg 6 of plaint

Annex-J/3-J/4 pg162-163 of plaint.

7. Renewal of above facilities. Para 12 pg 6 of plaint

Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002

& 30.05.2003 by Defendant No.1 for

renewal of limits for the periods upto

30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004. AnnexK&K /1 pg 168 &169

of plaint

Sanction Advices for renewal

dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 Annex-K /2pg 170-180 & K

/3 pg 181-189.

8. Acknowledgments of liability &promise to pay Paras 12& 13pg6&7

Annex-L- L/4/4pg 190-194.

9. Default paras13& 14 pg 7-8 Annex-

L/6-L/9pg196-204 of plaint.

PLA No.48-B/2005 by the Defendants No.1.

1. No particulars under section 10(4) given.

1. 2006 CLD 244

HBL VS SABCOS (PVT.) LTD.

(P247)A

(PP 250, 251, 252) B, C, D, H &1

(P252) F

(252) G

2. 2005 CLD 327

NBP VS NORTHERN POLYETHYLENE LTD.

(P332) A

3. 2003 CLD 1406

BANK OF KHYBER VS SPENSER

(P1414) F

(P 1414) G

4. 2002 CLD 1170

ICP VS MOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LTD.

(PP 1177, 1179) A &D

(P 1179) C

5. 2002 CLD 1431

NBP VS EFFEF INDUSTRIES

(PP 1448, 1450) G.MJ K L&X

(P 1449) I

Preliminary Objections.

* Suit is time barred. Para 2 pg 1 of PLA

Merely a bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason or

ground on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred.

*Suit is time barred. Para12 pgs 11 & 12 of PLA

Facilities subject matter of the suit were on revolving basis,

On maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all

Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions dated

08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the Board of Directors of Defendant No. 1

for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003

and 30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 &

12.09.2003 (Annex K, K /1 to plaint

Acknowledgement letters

dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002

and 01-02-2003 Annex-L/1 and L/2 and L/3 TO THE

plaint

*Suit is not maintainable

and bad either for mis-joinder.

of parties/causes of action Para 3 pg 1 of PLA

Again a bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason, ground

or any specific provision of law.

* Plaint not signed and verified

in accordance with the law. Para 4 pg 1 of PLA

Again a bald allegation.

Plaint has been signed and verified strictly in accordance with law.

*This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction

to adjudicate upon this suit. Para 5 pg 1 of PLA

Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were disbursed and were repayable

in Lahore. Defendant No.1 is also having its Head office at Lahore. All

Defendants including the answering Defendant also work for gains at Lahore. As

stated in the plaint, the cause of action has also arisen in Lahore that is situated

within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. Therefore, this

Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this suit.

Suit has been improperly instituted

/signed, instituted and filed incompetently. Para 10 pg 2 of PLA

*Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, who has signed

the plaint and instituted the titled suit

on behalf of the Plaintiff, is the Chief

Manager/Branch Manager of the Plaintiff's

branch at Badami Bagh, Lahore. Annex-A/2pg 20 of Plaint.

Suit filed by Branch Manager is competent.

1. 2004 CLD 1376 Mohammad Ramzan v/s ADBP(DB LHR)—(pg 1381) B.

2. 2001CLC 158 Mohammad Ramzan v/s Citi bank (DB LHR). Para 6 pg 162( No Head Note).

Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Malik

have also instituted the suit and signed/verified plain on

the basis of the Power of Attorney. Annex-A & A/I at pg 16-19 .

Suits on the basis of Power of Attorney.

1. 2004 CLD 1334 (Lahore DB) Haji Saghir Ahmad Vs. UBL (p.1338) B. Bank placed copies of power of attorney of the officers who instituted suit, held suit competently instituted.

2. 2002 CLD 334 (DB. Lahore) Mohammad Nawaz Chaudri Vs. Citi Bank (p. 336) A. Held, Power of Attorney produced on record by the Plaintiff established that person who instituted suit was authorized to institute the suit even if he was not a Branch Manager.

Defendant No.1 had rejected terms

of sanction letters dt 05-10-2002

& 12-09-2003. Para 17 pg 4 of PLA

As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant No.1 availed the facilities that

were approved through the said sanction advices.

Suit is time barred. Para12 pgs 11 & 12 of PLA

Facilities subject matter of the suit were on revolving basis,

On maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all

Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions dated

08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the Board of Directors of Defendant No. 1

for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003

and 30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 &

12.09.2003 (Annex K, K /1 to plaint

Acknowledgement letters

dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002

and 01-02-2003 Annex-L/1 and L/2 and L/3 of plaint

Documents attached with PLA admitting liability.

a. Letter dated 26-06-2003 Annex C pg 40-41 of PLA

paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8

Complaint regarding charging of higher mark-up.

b. Letter dated 13-07-2004 Annex E-2 pg 45 of PLA

requesting for calculation of mark-up rebate.

c. Letter dated 13-07-2004 Annex E-3 pg 46 of PLA

requesting for calculation of mark-up rebate.

d. Letter dated 20-11-2004 Annex F-2 pg 48 of PLA

para- 4

e. Letter dated 12-09-2004 Annex L-2 pg 83 & 84 of PLA

Admission of liability against the principal of Cash Finance(para 3

7 last)

Judgments that the Article 132 of the Limitation Act,1908 would Apply in cases of the suit filed in the Banking Courts for recovery of loans/finance through enforcement of mortgages and sale of the mortgaged properties.Article 132 provides period of 12 years from the date when the money sued for becomes due.

1. PLD 1990 Lahore 111(P114) A (UBL V/s Ifthikhar & Company).

2. 1993 MLD 1211(Lahore) (pg1215 &1216) A & B (Union Bank of Middle

East V/sMy Marks Co & Others.

3. PLD 1990 Lahore 99(pg107) D (UBL V/s Sartaj Industries).

COUNTER CLAIM OF RS.100.00 MILLION.

Pg 13 of PLA

* Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner and it never caused

prejudice, harm, damages, injuries to the Defendants.

* Plaintiff never ruined the business of the Defendants.

* Defendant is not entitled to any claim of damages/compensation of Rs.

100.00 million or for any other amount as alleged.

* Counter claim is not maintainable for the following reasons:

No court fee has been affixed for the counter claim,

This Honourable Court exercising its jurisdiction under the

Ordinance of 2001 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any claim

for any alleged compensation and damages.

++++++++


Execution Petition No.____/2007

IN

COS. No. 24/2005

Allied Bank Limited [Formerly Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited], a banking company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and having its registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road, Lahore and a branch amongst others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore.

…….Decree holder

VERSUS

M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited having its Head office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Registered office/Mill/Factory at Plot No.12-A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur Azad Jammu Kashmir.

….Judgment Debtor

Application under Section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Order 21 and Section 151 CPC for Execution of Interim Decree dated 27-01-2006


That this Honourable Court was pleased to pass an interim Decree dated

27-11-2006 in favour of the Plaintiff/Decree Holder. As per Section 19 of the

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 a Decree Holder

is required to file particulars of the mortgaged, hypothecated and other assets of

the Judgment Debtor as well as other particulars necessary for execution of the

above interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 for consideration of this Honourable

Court. The necessary particulars required for execution of the Interim Decree

dated 27-11-2006 are as under:

1. Suit. C.O.S No. 24/2005.

2. Names of the parties. As per the titled C.O.S No.24/05.

3. Date of interim decree. 27-11-2006 .

4. Whether any appeal has been filed. No.

5. Previous application, if any, withdate and result. Nill.

6. Decretal Amount Rs.50,199,692.69.

7. Amount of costs awarded Nill

8. Payment or adjustment made, if any NIL

9. Total amount recoverable. Rs.50,199,692.69.

10. Against whom to be executed Judgment Debtor named above.

11. Particulars of the mortgaged, hypothecated and other assets of the Judgment Debtor. As per Fard Taliqa attached.

12. Mode in which the assistance of the court is required

a. Through attachment, recovery of

possession and sale/auction of properties

and assets of the Judgment Debtor as

specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa)

appended herewith and all other

properties/assets which are discovered

later on,

b. By appointment of Receiver(s) of the

properties & assets specified in the Lists

(Fard Taliqa) appended herewith.

c. Permission by the Honourable Court to

the Decree Holder to sell the mortgaged

and hypothecated properties/assets

specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa)

appended herewith in the manner

provided in section 19(3) of Financial

Institutions (Recovery of Finances)

Ordinance of 2001.

It is humbly submitted that this Honourable Court was pleased to pass the

interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 in favour of the Decree Holder and against the

Judgment Debtor. However, Judgment Debtor has failed to repay the decretal

amount.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court may

kindly initiate and hear the case for execution of the Decree dated 27-11-2006 and

that the sum of Rs.50,199,692.69 kindly be recovered from the Judgment Debtor

on the modes specified in the para-12 above.

Decree Holder (ABL)

through

Raja Mohammed Akram Senior Advocate.

VERIFICATION:

It is verified on oath at ______ on this ____ day of ______ 2007 that the contents

of contained in Para 1 to 12 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

CERTIFICATE:

As per instructions of the Applicant this is the First Execution Petition of the interim decree dated 27-11-2006 before this Hon’ble Court.

Advocate


FARD TALIQA Under Order 21 Rule 12 (CPC) Read with the Section 19 of the

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances ) Ord, 2001.

Execution Petition No.____/2007

IN

COS. No.24/2005

Allied Bank Limited…Plaintiff/Decree Holder

VERSUS


… Respondents

PARTICULARS OF THE MORTGAGED AND HYPOTHECATED IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE ASSETS OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.1 THAT ARE TO BE ATTACHED AND SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTION OF THE INTERIM DECREE IN DATED 27-11-2006 THE ABOVE-TITLED SUIT IS AS UNDER:

(1) Immovable mortgaged assets belonging to the Judgment Debtor.

All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-

A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all

constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and

installed thereon.

(2) Moveable hypothecated assets of the Judgment Debtor.

(i) All current assets including raw material, work in progress,

finished goods lying at the premises mentioned in the Serial No.1

above or in transit or stored or lying any where in Pakistan, book

debts, receivables and all its undertakings both present and future.

(ii) Motor cars and other vehicles in their names.

(iii) Investments in the shares of other companies.

(iv) Bank Balances in the banks accounts maintained with various

banks.

Decree Holder

through


\

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.(Banking Jurisdiction)

C.M. No.____________2001In

Execution Petition No. 18-B/1999

Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd.

……. Applicant/Decree-Holder

VERSUS

Mohib Fabrics Industries Limited and others……. Respondents

APPLICATION on behalf of Decree-holder (PICIC) under Section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 read with Section 151 CPC and all other enabling provisions of law for sale of the Machinery etc. of the Judgment Debtor No.1 (MFIL) by inviting sealed Tenders/Bids.


1. That the titled execution petition is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. That by the order dated 6-5-99, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to appoint Mr. Gulzar Hussan, Advocate and Mr. Sharif Butt, Advocate, as Court-Auctioners to sell through public auction the assets of the judgment-debtors both immovable and movable as specified in the Fard Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution Petition.

2 That the titled suit was decreed on 10-12-1998 and titled Execution Petition was

filed in March, 1999 and was fixed for hearing first time on 10-3-99 but the

Decree dated 10-12-1998 remained unsatisfied as the assets of the Judgment-

debtors have not been sold so far causing colossal loss to the Decree Holder.

3. That the Applicant/Decree Holder has not been able to recover its decretal amount

so far. Sale of land and building of Judgment Debtor No.1 may take some time.

However, the machinery/plant etc of the Judgment Debtor No.1 financed by the

Applicant and under its exclusive charge can be sold efficaciously by the Court

Auctioneers by inviting sealed tenders as provided under Section 19 of the

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001(hereinafter

referred to as "the Ordinance of 2001"). The land and building of Judgment

Debtor No.1 may be subsequently sold by the Court auctioneers.

4. That in case machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1, specified in the Fard

Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution Petition and also specified in Mark-A

hereto, are allowed to be sold by inviting sealed tenders, the Applicant/Decree

Holder shall be able to satisfy its Decree at least in part avoiding further loss.

5. That in view of the above facts, it would be in the interest of justice if the Court

Auctioneers are allowed to sell the machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1 that

is under exclusive charge/mortgage of the Decree Holder/Applicant, through

inviting sealed tenders instead of public auction.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i) to direct the Court Auctioneers to sell the machinery/plant as per Mark-A

belonging to the Judgment Debtor No.1 and exclusively hypothecated/mortgaged

with the Decree Holder, through inviting sealed Tenders/Bids as envisaged and in

the manner specified in Sub-Sections (3), (4), (5) & (6) of Section 19 of the

Ordinance of 2001 and to allow appropriation proceeds thereof towards partial

satisfaction of the Decree dated 10-12-1998;

(ii) to grant to the Decree Holder any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and appropriate.

APPLICANT/DECREE-HOLDER(PICIC)

through

RAJA MOHAMMAD AKRAMSenior Advocate

SALMAN AKRAM RAJAAdvocate High Court.

NOMAAN AKRAM RAJA

Advocate High Court

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DECREE HOLDER (PICIC) UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

(RECOVERY OF FINANCES) ORDINANCE, 2001 READ WITH ALL OTHER ENABLING PROVISIONS OF LAW


2. That the titled execution petition is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. That by the order dated 6-5-99, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to appoint Mr. Gulzar Hussan, Advocate and Mr. Sharif Butt, Advocate, as Court-Auctioners to sell through public auction the assets of the judgment-debtors both immovable and movable as specified in the Fard Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution Petition.

2. That the Applicant/Decree Holder has not been able to recover its decretal amount

so far. Sale of land and building of Judgment Debtor No.1 may take some time.

However, the machinery/plant etc of the Judgment Debtor No.1 financed by the

Applicant and under its exclusive charge can be sold efficaciously by the Court

Auctioneers by inviting sealed tenders as provided under Section 19 of the

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001(hereinafter

referred to as "the Ordinance of 2001"). The land and building of Judgment

Debtor No.1 may be subsequently sold by the Court auctioneers.

3. That in case machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1, specified in the Fard

Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution Petition and also specified in Mark-A

hereto, are allowed to be sold by inviting sealed tenders, the Applicant/Decree

Holder shall be able to satisfy its Decree at least in part avoiding further loss.

4. That the Applicant earlier filed C.M. No.739-B/2001, which is still pending,

wherein permission was sought from this Honourable Court to sell the

machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1 through inviting sealed tenders/bids in

accordance with law. However, no order on the said application has as yet been

passed. The matter has assumed some urgency in view of the fact that the

Applicant has located potential buyers for the purchase of the machinery,

including certain overseas parties who are present in the country for the purpose

of inspection/evaluation. If appropriate orders are not passed by this Honourable

Court, it is apprehended that an opportunity to dispose of the machinery at an

excellent price shall be missed and in this manner the interests of the Decree

Holder/Applicant shall suffer tremendously.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(iii) to direct the Court Auctioneers to sell the machinery/plant as per Mark-A

belonging to the Judgment Debtor No.1 and exclusively hypothecated/mortgaged

with the Decree Holder, through inviting sealed Tenders/Bids as envisaged and in

the manner specified in Sub-Sections (3), (4), (5) & (6) of Section 19 of the

Ordinance of 2001 and to allow appropriation proceeds thereof towards partial

satisfaction of the Decree dated 10-12-1998;

(iv) to grant to the Decree Holder any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and appropriate.

Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly passed.


C.M. No.____/2007.

In



Application under Section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Order 21 Rule 66 and Section 151 CPC for Fixation of the Reserved Price of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.


1. That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court

and is fixed for hearing on 22-02-2007.

2. That on the last date of hearing on 08-02-2007, the Honourable Court was pleased to

direct the Applicant/Decree Holder to file in the Honourable Court the estimated reserved

price of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor specified in the Fard Taliqua attached

with the titled petition.

3. That the Decree Holder bank had got determined the value of the fixed assets of the

Judgment Debtor No.1 from M/s Engineering Pakistan International (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore

(Evaluator). That as per the Evaluation Report dated 30-06-2006 (copy attached as

Mark-A), the value of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor No.1 is as under:

I. Value of Land Rs. 5,311,450.00II. Value of Building & Civil Works etc. Rs. 33,726,950.00III. Value of Plant & Machinery Rs. 95,900,217.00

Total Value: Rs.134,938,617.00

4. That in view of the above Evaluation Report, the reserved price of the fixed assets of the

Judgment Debtor specified in the Fard Taliqa and also given below may kindly be fixed

at Rs.134,938,617.00;





It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court may kindly fix the

reserved price of the above assets of the Judgment Debtor at Rs.134,938,617.00.


Decree Holder (ABL)

through



C.M. No.____/2007.

In



Application under Section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Order 21 Rule 66 and Section 151 CPC for Fixation of the Reserved Price of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.

AFFIDAVIT OF MR. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch Allied Bank Limited, 199-Upper Mall, Lahore.



Court and is fixed for hearing on 22-02-2007.

2. That on the last date of hearing on 08-02-2007, the Honourable Court was pleased

to direct the Applicant/Decree Holder to file in the Honourable Court the

estimated reserved price of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor specified in

the Fard Taliqua attached with the titled petition.

3. That the Decree Holder bank had got determined the value of the fixed assets of

the Judgment Debtor No.1 from M/s Engineering Pakistan International (Pvt.)

Ltd., Lahore (Evaluator). That as per the Evaluation Report dated 30-06-2006

(copy attached as Mark-A), the value of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor

No.1 is as under:

I. Value of Land Rs.5,311,450.00II. Value of Building & Civil Works etc. Rs. 33,726,950.00III. Value of Plant & Machinery Rs. 95,900,217.00

Total Value: Rs.134,938,617.00

4. That in view of the above Evaluation Report, the reserved price of the fixed assets

of the Judgment Debtor specified in the Fard Taliqa and also given below may

kindly be fixed at Rs.134,938,617.00;


No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together


constructed and installed thereon.”

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _______ 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS:

1. The Application for leave to defend (PLA) filed by the Applicants completely

fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of law contained in section 10 of

the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Ordinance of 2001”).

2. PLA is not in accordance with sub-sections (3), (4) & (5) of section 10 of the

Ordinance of 2001.

3. That as required by law substantial question of law as well as facts, which require

evidence, has to be specifically formulated and stated. This provision of law has

also not been complied with.

4. Sub-section (6) of section 10 of the Ordinance of 2001 reproduced below lays

down that the Application for leave to defend shall be rejected if it does not

comply with the requirements of sub-section (3), (4) where applicable and (5).

“(6) An application for leave to defend which does not comply with the requirements of sub-section (3), (4) where applicable and (5) shall be rejected, unless the defendant discloses therein sufficient cause for his inability to comply with any such requirement.”

Since the Application for leave to defend has not complied with the mandatory

requirements of Sub-sections 3, 4 and 5, the same is liable to be rejected.

2. Execution Petition No.4-B/2007 titled ABL V/s M/s Diamond Polymers

(Pvt.) limited.

ZAFAR, IQBAL & RAJAADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

33-C Main Gulberg Lahore, Pakistan

Tel.: (042) 575-0074 and (042) 575-0208Fax: (042) 575-0175

E-mail: [email protected]

Walid Iqbal Salman Akram Raja

Mr. Nasir Ayub, 25 January 2007RGM, CSIBL,8th Floor, Crescent Standard Tower,10-B, Block E2,Gulberg III, Lahore.

Subject: Suit titled WAPDA Versus CSIBL

DEAR SIR,

This has reference to the captioned suit. The case was fixed today for hearing

before Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Shah of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore. The

Honourable Lahore High Court was pleased to issue notice to the Plaintiff WAPDA for

the Application of CSIBL for withdrawal of restraining order dated 21-09-2006 whereby

the Honourable Lahore High Court was pleased to pass an order temporarily restraining

CSIBL from transferring and disposing off its assets. Two applications filed by the

Plaintiff including application for order restraining CSIBL from transferring and

disposing off its assets were also fixed today. Now the case is fixed for arguments on 13-

2-2007.

Thanking you and assuring you of our full cooperation at all times.

Yours truly,

Zafar, Iqbal & Raja


C.M. No.____/2007.

In



Application under Sections 7 & 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Sections 51 & 60, Order 21 Rule 54 and Section 151 CPC for attachment of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.


1. That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court and is fixed for hearing on 16-04-2007.

2. That the Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition and also given below:





3. That if the Respondent/Judgment Debtor sells its aforesaid fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder, not only the Decree Holder will suffer an irreparable loss but also the process of law and the Decree dated 27-11-2006 would be frustrated.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to make an order for attachment of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder and mentioned in para 2 above.


Decree Holder (ABL)

through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMADSenior Advocate Advocate High Court Supreme Court of Pakistan




Application under Sections 7 & 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Sections 51 & 60, Order 21 Rule 54 and Section 151 CPC for attachment of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.

AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch Allied Bank Limited, 199-Upper Mall, Lahore.


1. That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court and is fixed for hearing on 16-04-2007.

2. That the Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition and also given below:





3. That if the Respondent/Judgment Debtor sells its aforesaid fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder, not only the Decree Holder will suffer an irreparable loss but also the process of law and the Decree dated 27-11-2006 would be frustrated.

DEPONENT

Verification:


DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

Objection Petition No. ___/2008

In


In

COS. No.24/2005

ABL V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited.

Reply by the Decree Holder to the Objection Petition filed by the Judgment Debtor under section 46, Order 21 Rule 66 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with all other enabling provision of law.



2. Denied vehemently. Denied that due to mere filing of the First Appeal No.

88/2007 against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of

notices thereof by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree

Holder, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are liable to be stayed

till disposal of the aforesaid RFA. It may be noted that the Honourable

Lahore High Court, Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA No. 88/2007 has

neither suspended operation of the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-11-

2006 nor granted any stay against the execution of the said Interim Decree

dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition

are not liable to be stayed by this Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.

3. Denied vehemently. Denied that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to

auction the property that is the subject matter of the titled Execution

Petition due to the fact that the said property is situated in Mirpur Azad

Jammu & Kashmir. Denied that the said property does not fall within the

jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as alleged. The Judgment Debtor had

voluntarily put in its appearance before this Honourable Court and

contested the titled suit on merits. Therefore, under the law the Judgment

Debtor cannot be allowed to turn back and deny jurisdiction of this

Honourable Court to execute the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. It is

submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No. 88/2007 legality

of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on the alleged

ground that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court lacked

territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the titled suit or to pass the said

Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Denied that the Schedule of auction filed

by the Court auctioneers in this Honourable Court is either nullity in the

eyes of the law or it does not fulfill any of the mandatory requirements of

Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC. Denied that in the said Schedule of auction, the

exact description of property to be sold has not been given either

deliberately or with mala fide intentions on the part of the Decree Holder as

alleged. Not only the complete and correct description of the said property

but also all other information/details as per the requirements of Order 21

Rule 66 of CPC have been given in the said Schedule of auction.

4. Denied vehemently. Denied that the property that is the subject matter

of the titled Execution Petition cannot be sold till disposal of the

applications for leave to defend the suits filed by the Judgment Debtor

and other Defendants (PLAs). It is submitted that the titled Execution

Petition has been filed for execution of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-

2006 passed by this Honourable Court on the basis of admission made by

the Judgment Debtor No.1 in its PLA No.42-B/2006. It is submitted that as

per section 11(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)

Ordinance of 2001 (“the Ordinance”), an interim decree, for all purposes

including appeal and execution, is a decree under the Ordinance.

Accordingly, law permits this Honourable Court to make sale of the

property (admittedly mortgaged with the Decree Holder), in execution of

the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, it is denied that the sale of

the property that is the subject matter by this Honourable Court is being

made without judicially deciding the case. Denied that the sale of the said

property by this Honourable Court without deciding PLAs filed by the

Applicant/Judgment Debtor and other Defendants would cause any

injustice to the Applicant/Judgment Debtor as alleged.

5. Denied vehemently. Denied that it is in the best interests of justice, equity

or fair play to stay the proceedings in the titled Execution Petition till final

disposal of RFA No. 88/2007.

In view of the above facts and law, it is humbly prayed that the

petition under reply may kindly be dismissed with special costs.

Any further relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case may also kindly be granted to the Decree Holder.

Decree Holder (ABL).

through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM Senior Advocate



LL.M (Harvard)Advocate

Supreme Court.




In


In

COS. No.24/2005



AFFIDAVIT OF: Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch,Allied Bank Limited, 199-Upper Mall, Lahore.



2. Denied vehemently. Denied that due to mere filing of the First Appeal No. 88/2007 against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of notices thereof by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree Holder, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are liable to be stayed till disposal of the aforesaid RFA. It may be noted that the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA No.88/2007 has neither suspended operation of the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 nor granted any stay against the execution of the said Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are not liable to be stayed by this Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.

3. Denied vehemently. Denied that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to auction the property that is the subject matter of the titled Execution Petition due to the fact that the said property is situated in Mirpur Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Denied that the said property does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as alleged. The Judgment Debtor had voluntarily put in its appearance before this Honourable Court and contested the titled suit on merits. Therefore, under the law the Judgment Debtor cannot be allowed to turn back and deny jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to execute the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. It is submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No. 88/2007 legality of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on the alleged ground that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the titled suit or to pass the said Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Denied that the Schedule of auction filed by the Court auctioneers in this Honourable Court is either nullity in the eyes of the law or it does not fulfill any of the mandatory requirements of Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC. Denied that in the said Schedule of auction, the exact description of property to be sold has not been given either deliberately or with mala fide intentions on the part of the Decree Holder as alleged. Not only the complete and correct description of the said property but also all other information/details as per

the requirements of Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC have been given in the said Schedule of auction.

4. Denied vehemently. Denied that the property that is the subject matter of the titled Execution Petition cannot be sold till disposal of the applications for leave to defend the suits filed by the Judgment Debtor and other Defendants (PLAs). It is submitted that the titled Execution Petition has been filed for execution of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 passed by this Honourable Court on the basis of admission made by the Judgment Debtor No.1 in its PLA No.42-B/2006. It is submitted that as per section 11(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 (“the Ordinance”), an interim decree, for all purposes including appeal and execution, is a decree under the Ordinance. Accordingly, law permits this Honourable Court to make sale of the property (admittedly mortgaged with the Decree Holder), in execution of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, it is denied that the sale of the property that is the subject matter by this Honourable Court is being made without judicially deciding the case. Denied that the sale of the said property by this Honourable Court without deciding PLAs filed by the Applicant/Judgment Debtor and other Defendants would cause any injustice to the Applicant/Judgment Debtor as alleged.

5. Denied vehemently. Denied that it is in the best interests of justice, equity or fair play to stay the proceedings in the titled Execution Petition till final disposal of RFA No. 88/2007.

DEPONENT

Verification:


affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT



In


In

COS. No.24/2005


AFFIDAVIT OF: Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh,VP/Manager Sam Branch,Allied Bank Limited, 199-Upper Mall, Lahore.

I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that

the contents of the accompanying reply to the Objection Petition are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _____________, 2008 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch, Allied Bank Limited, 199-Upper Mall, Lahore.

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan

It is submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No. 88/2007 legality of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on the alleged ground that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the titled suit or pass the said Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006.



In


In

COS. No.24/2005



AFFIDAVIT OF: Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch,Allied Bank Limited, 199-Upper Mall, Lahore.



2. Denied vehemently. Denied that due to mere filing of the First Appeal No. 88/2007

against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of notices thereof by the

Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree Holder, proceedings in the titled

Execution Petition are liable to be stayed till disposal of the aforesaid RFA. It may be

noted that the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA

No.88/2007 has neither suspended operation of the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-11-

2006 nor granted any stay against the execution of the said Interim Decree dated 27-11-

2006. Therefore, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are not liable to be stayed by

this Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.

3. Denied vehemently. Denied that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to auction the

property that is the subject matter of the titled Execution Petition due to the fact that the

said property is situated in Mirpur Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Denied that the said property

does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as alleged. The Judgment

Debtor had voluntarily put in its appearance before this Honourable Court and contested

the titled suit on merits. Therefore, under the law the Judgment Debtor cannot be allowed

to turn back and deny jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to execute the Interim Decree

dated 27-11-2006. It is submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No.

88/2007 legality of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on the

alleged ground that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court

Before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.

COS. No.24/2005.

ABL V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & Others.

Proposed issues on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank.

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? (OPP).

2. Relief.

Plaintiff (ABL)

through

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED SALMAN AKRAM RAJAAdvocate High Court. M.A.(Cantab) LL.M(London)

LL.M (Harvard)Advocate

Supreme Court.



C.M. No.____/2008.

In



Application under Sections 7 & 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51 , Order 21 Rules 66,67 & 82 and Section 151 CPC for auction of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.



Court.






































xiii. for dismissing the Objection Petition filed by the Respondent,

xiv. for restraining the Respondent from selling machinery and other



xv. for directing the Court auctioneers to sell through public auction



Decree Holder (ABL)

through



Supreme Court.


C.M. No.____/2008.

In



Application under Sections 7 & 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51 , Order 21 Rules 66,67 & 82 and Section 151 CPC for auction of the fixed assets of the Judgment Detbor.

AFFIDAVIT OF: Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.




“All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and installed thereon.”

3. That the Court Auctioneers have already filed, in this Honourable Court, the Proclamation of Sale through public auction of the aforesaid assets and notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was issued to the Judgment Debtor. That the Judgment Debtor had filed objection to the sale of assets and the reply whereof was filed by the Decree Holder. When the titled Execution Petition was fixed on 06-02-2008, the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor had sought adjournment on the ground that before arguing the Objection Petition, he would like to see the contents of the reply thereof and the Honurable Court was pleased to adjourn the case for 26-02-2008. On 26-02-2008 the case was again adjourned for arguments for 11-03-2008. However, on 11-03-2008, titled Execution Petition could not be heard due to the Bomb Explosions in the City.

4. That the Interim Decree was passed on 27-11-2006 but despite passage of a considerable period of time, the Decree Holder has been un-successful in recovering the decretal amount. Under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001, an Objection Petition is to be decided within 30 days of filing thereof which period has already lapsed.

5. That after 26-02-2008, the Respondent/Judgment Debtor has started removing and selling machinery charged with the Decree Holder and installed at the premises mentioned in para-2 above. If the Respondent/Judgment Debtor is not restrained from selling machinery and other fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree

Holder, not only the Decree Holder will suffer an irreparable loss but also the process of law and the Decree dated 27-11-2006 would be frustrated.

6. That it is in the interest of justice that the Objection Petition filed by the Respondent be dismissed, Respondent be restrained from selling the machinery and other fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder and the Court Auctioneers be directed to sell the assets specified in para-2 above and in the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _____________, 2008 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

RFA No. 88/2007 titled M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited v/s ABL.




2. Denied vehemently. Denied that due to mere filing of the First Appeal No.

88/2007 against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of

notices thereof by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree

Holder, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are liable to be stayed

till disposal of the aforesaid RFA. It may be noted that the Honourable

Lahore High Court, Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA No. 88/2007 has

neither suspended operation of the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-11-

2006 nor granted any stay against the execution of the said Interim Decree

dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition

are not liable to be stayed by this Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM & CO.ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

33-C Main Gulberg Lahore, Pakistan

Tel.: (042) 575-0074 and (042) 575-0208Fax: (042) 575-0175

SALMAN AKRAM RAJA NOMAAN AKRAM RAJA M.A.(Cantab) LL.M (London) LL.B (Hons) London LL.M (Harvard) Barrister-at-Law, AdvocateAdvocate Supreme Court

Mis. Kubra Gillani, 13 May, 2008Litigation Officer,Allied Bank Limited, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, Near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.

Subject: RFA No. 88/2007 titled M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited v/s ABL.RFA No. 89/2007 titled Shafi Chemicals Industries Ltd v/s ABL.

Dear sir,

It may be recalled that the titled appeals, having been withdrawn, were disposed

of on 06-05-2008 by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore. You are requested to

pay us Rs.1500.00 being expenses incurred by us in connection with conducting and

withdrawal of the above appeals. Above amount may kindly be paid in cash.

Yours truly,

for

Raja Mohammed Akram & Company.

ToMis. Kubra Gillani, Litigation Officer ABL,Allied Bank Limited, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, Near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.

From.RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM & CO.Advocates And Legal Consultants33-C Main Gulberg Lahore.


DEPONENT

Verification:


DEPONENT

C.O.S No. 18/2005

Allied Bank Limited

…….Plaintiff/Applicant

VERSUS

M/s Diamond Industries Limited and Others.

.….Defendants/Respondents

Application by the Plaintiff under Section 10 (11) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001(Ordinance of 2001) and Section 151 CPC read with all other enabling provisions of law for passing of Decree.


1. That the titled suit having been filed for recovery of Rs.253,652,224.00 is pending

adjudication before this Honourable Court.

2 That by the Order dated 17-01-2007, this Honourable Court was pleased to

grant to the Defendants/Respondents leave to defend the titled suit subject to

the deposit of Rs.78.6865 million with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this

Honourable Court within ninety (90) days of passing of the aforesaid Order.

3. That the aforesaid period of ninety (90) days expired on 17-04-2007.

However, Defendants/Respondents have failed to fulfill the aforesaid

condition of deposit of Rs.78.6865 million attached to the grant of leave to

defend the titled suit.

4. That due to the non-compliance with and violation of the Order dated 17-01-2007

passed by this Honourable Court, judgment and decree are liable to be passed

against the Defendants/Respondents.

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment and decree may kindly be passed under section 10 (11) of

the Ordinance of 2001 against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiff in the manner prayed for in the plaint.

Any other order deemed fit and proper may also kindly be passed by this Honourable Court.

Plaintiff/Applicant (ABL)

through

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM Senior Advocate Supreme Court.

SALMAN AKRAM RAJAM.A.(CANTAB.) LL.M (London)LL.M (Harvard)

Advocate Supreme Court. 33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore.

C.O.S.No.18/2005 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Industries Limited Etc

which was decreed by this Honourable Court on 12-10-2007

REF: SAM-BR/KG/08/October 16, 2008

Mr. Raja Muhammad AkramAdvocate Supreme Court, 33- C Main Gulberg,Lahore.

Dear Sir,

C.O.S. No.24 /2005 titled ABL vs. Diamond Polymer etc andC.O.S. No.25/2005 titled ABL vs. Shafi Chemical and others

This is with reference to titled cases and your letter dated 13.10.2008 whereby list of witnesses was required to be filed in court for evidence. Please note that the names of bank officials who are proposed witnesses in both above mentioned cases.

1. Muhammad Saleem Raza (Chief Manager, ABL, Shahdra Branch, Lahore now retired) R/o 104-Main Bazar Shahdra Town Lahore.

2. Muhammad Anwar Malik (Officer, ABL, Shahdra Branch, now retired) R/o Mohallah Muslim Pura, Bara Adda Larian, Sharqpur Sharif, District, Sheikhupura.

3. Ijaz Bashir Bhatti (Regional Head, CRBG, ABL, Regional office, Gujrat)

4. Mian Asif Mehmood (Manager ABL, Azam Cloth Market, Lahore) 5. Syed Asad Raza Naqvi (Officer Allied Bank Limited Gulshan -e-

Ravi Branch Lahore)6. Syed Mujtaba Gillani (Wing Head, Special Vigilance Cell ABL, 6th

floor Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore) 7. Mian Muhammad Rasheed (Present Area Manager ABL, SAM

Branch, 6th floor Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore)

8. Nawaz Ali Malik (Present Manager ABL, Shahdra Branch Lahore)9. Faseh Siddiqui ( Manager RC&RR, ABL, Karachi)10. Shaukat Ali Larik (Retired from ABL now, in “My Bank”,

Head Compliance, Karachi)

We inform you that above mentioned officers, who signed the plaint, executed the documents, issued BFL, witnessed the charged documents, statements and financial documents etc.

Yours faithfully,

Kubra GilaniAbdul Shakoor Bhatti

Law Officer Relationship Manager

Execution Petition No.4-B/2007 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited. Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006

Sr. No.

Documents Date Annex Page Document available or not

A Cort Fee for Rs.15000.00 28.09.2005 A-B

B Suit for recovery 28.09.2005 I-11

C Form Fard Pata 28.09.2005 I2

D Form under order 7 Rule 14 28.09.2005 I4

E Form under order 13 Rule 1 CPC 28.09.2005 14-15

1 Power of Attorneys of Authorized Officer A&A/1 16-19 AVAILABLE2 Appoint letter A/2 20 AVAILABLE3 Copies of the resolution 22.05.1996 B 21-23 N.A4 Account opening form 29.05.1996 B/1 24 N.A

Certificate of Incorporation of the Plaintiff Company

21.05.1996 C 25 N.A

5 Sanction Advice 09.04.2001 D 26-34 AVAILABLE6 Agreement for Financing (CF) 10.04.2001 E 35-38 AVAILABLE7 Promissory note (CF) 10.04.2001 E/1 39-40 AVAILABLE8 Letter of Hypothecation 10.04.2001 E/2 41-42 AVAILABLE9 Agreement for Financing 10.04.2001 F 43-46 AVAILABLE

10 Promissory note 10.04.2001 F/1 47-48 AVAILABLE11 Letter of Pledge 10.04.2001 F/2 49-51 AVAILABLE12 Stock Reports F/3&F/4 52-54 AVAILABLE13 Agreement for Financing 10.04.2001 G 55-58 AVAILABLE14 Promissory Note 10.04.2001 G/1 59-60 AVAILABLE15 Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 22.01.2004 G/2 63 TO BE

CHECKED16 Bill of Exchange 30.03.2004 G/3 62-63 TO BE

CHECKED17 Letter No.DPOL/4/4 22.04.2004 G/4 64 TO BE

CHECKED18 Memorandum of Deposit of Litle Deeds B 65 AVAILABLE19 Letter of Hypothecation 26.08.1999 H/I 66-68 N.A20 From X 28.08.1999 H/I 66-68 N.A21 Certificate of Charge Registeration 19.01.1999 H/2005 76 N.A22 From X 09.04.1996 G/9 102 N.A23 Memo of Deposit of Title Deed 24.01.2002 H/4 75 AVAILABLE24 Letter of Hypothecation 24.01.2002 H/5 26-78 AVAILABLE25 From XVI 24.01.2002 H/6 79 N.A26 Certificate of Charge Registration 26.01.2002 H/7 80 AVAILABLE27 General Power of Attorney 07.08.2000 H/8, H/9 81-97 AVAILABLE28 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed I 98-99 AVAILABLE29 Mortgage Deed 16.08.2002 I/I 100-108 AVAILABLE30 General Power of Attorney I/2 109-114 AVAILABLE31 Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin I/3 115-120 AVAILABLE32 Letter of Continuity of Mortgage 25.04.2003 I/4 121 AVAILABLE33 Sale Deeds ( 6 in number) 20.03.1982 I/% to I/10 122-155 AVAILABLE34 Personal Guarantees J to J/2 156-161 AVAILABLE35 Letter of Awareness J/3 & J/4 162-167 AVAILABLE36 Copy of Resolution 08.03.2002 K 168 N.A37 Copy of Resolution 30.05.2003 K/I 169 N.A38 Sanction Advice 05.10.2002 K/2 170-180 AVAILABLE39 Sanction Advice 12.09.2003 K/3 181-189 AVAILABLE

40 Letter from DIL 12.07.2002 L/1 190 N.A41 Letter from DIL 19.11.2002 L/1 191-192 N.A42 Letter from DIL 01.02.2003 L/3 193 N.A43 Letter from DIL 08.02.2003 L/4 194 N.A44 Letter from DIL 20.02.2003 L/5 195 N.A45 Letter from ABL 18.09.2003 L/6 196 N.A46 Letter from ABL 25.09.2003 L/7 197-198 AVAILABLE47 Letter from DIL 27.09.2003 L/8 199-200 AVAILABLE48 Letter from ABL 16.10.2003 L/9 201-204 AVAILABLE49 Statement of Accounts M to M/1 205-754 AVAILABLE50 Statement of Accounts N to N/1 755-807 AVAILABLE51 Statement of Accounts O to O/1 808-810 AVAILABLE52 Stay application with affidavit 811-816 53 Vakalatnama 817


C.M. No.______ -B/2009In

COS. No.24/2005

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited & others.

(Application by the Plaintiff Allied Bank Limited under sections 7 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 (“the Ordinance of 2001”) read with section 151 of CPC and all others enabling provisions of law for placing original documents on the record of the titled case.



2. That the proceedings for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff are fixed

on 21-03-2009 before the Learned Local Commissioner Mr. Justice (Retd)

Karamat Nazir Bhindari.

3. That vide order dated 7-03-2009, the Learned Local Commissioner Mr.

Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari was pleased to direct the Plaintiff to

place on the record of the titled case the original documents available with

the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also desires to bring on the record of the titled suit a

Notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 to admit documents

under Order 12 Rule2 & 3 CPC and Article 76 & 77 of the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order, 1984.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the following documents may kindly be

ordered to be placed on the record of the titled suit:

1. Sanction Advice dated 9-4-2001 (Original).

2. Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).

3. Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).

4. Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).

5. Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).

6. Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).

7. Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).

8. Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).

9. Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).

10. Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).

11. Accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Original).

12. Letter No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).

13. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Original).

14. Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Original).

15. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Original).

16. Letter of Hypothecation dated 24.01.2002 (Original).

17. Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Original).

18. General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Original).

19. Sanction Advice dated 05.10.2002 (Original).


21. Letter dated 27-09-2003 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).

22. Copy of the Notice to admit documents under 0rder 12 Rule2 & 3 CPC and Article 76 & 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly passed.

APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF (ABL)

through

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED Advocate High Court 33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore.

In re COS. No.24/2005

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited & others.

To

1. M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited,Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore.

2. Mr. Khurrum Saeed, Advocate,Supreme Court of Pakistan,252-C, Wazir Ali Road,Upper Mall, Lahore.

Notice to admit documents under 0rder 12 Rule2 & 3 CPC and Article 76 & 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984).

Take notice that the Plaintiff in this suit proposes to adduce in evidence the several documents hereunder specified and that the same may be inspected by the Defendant No.1, his pleader or agent from the record of the case file in the captioned suit. Defendant is hereby required, within forty-eight hours from receipt of this notice to admit that such of the said documents as are specified to be originals were respectively written, signed or executed as they purport respectively to have been; that such as are specified as copies are true copies; and such documents as are stated to have been executed, furnished, served, sent or delivered were so executed, furnished served, sent or delivered were so executed, furnished, served, sent or delivered were so served, sent or delivered, respectively, saving all just exceptions to the admissibility of all such documents as evidence in this suit.

It is further conveyed that in respect of such documents of which only copies are available with the Plaintiff (as indicated in the list below), it is the Plaintiff’s position that the originals of such documents are in the possession of M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited. This notice may therefore also be treated as a notice in terms of section 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to produce the documents of which only copies are available with the Plaintiff (as per the list below):

1. Copy of the Resolution dated 22.05.1996 passed by the Board of Directors of M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited.

2. Copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited.


4 Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).

5. Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).

6 Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).

7 Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).

8 Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).

9 Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).

10 Copies of two Stocks Reports of the pledged stocks. In accordance with the Order dated 26-04-2006 passed by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited took delivery of the pledged stock from the Plaintiff.

11 Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).

12 Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).

13 Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).

14 Accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Original).

15 Letter No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).

16 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Original).

17 Letter of Hypothecation dated 26.08.1999 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Copy).

18 Form X dated 28.08.1999 (Copy).

19 Certificate of Charge Registration dated 01.09.1999 (Copy).

20 Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Original).

21 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Original).

22 Letter of Hypothecation dated 24.01.2002 (Original).

23 Form XVI dated 24.01.2002 (Copy).

24 Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Original).

25 General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Original).

26. Resolution dated 08.03.2002 passed by its Board of Directors of M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited(Copy).

27. Sanction Advice dated 05.10.2002 (Original).

28 Resolution dated 30-05-2003 passed by its Board of Directors of M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited(Copy).


30. Letter dated 12-07-2002 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Copy).

31. Letter 19-11-2002 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Copy).

32 Letter dated 01-02-2003 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Copy).



35 Letter dated 18-09-2003 from Plaintiff (Copy).


37 Letter dated 27-09-2003 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).


On behalf of Plaintiff

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED Advocate High Court33-C Main Gulberg, Lahore.

Sr. No.

Documents Date Annex Page Document available or not

A Cort Fee for Rs.15000.00 28.09.2005 A-B

B Suit for recovery 28.09.2005 I-11

C Form Fard Pata 28.09.2005 I2

D Form under order 7 Rule 14 28.09.2005 I4

E Form under order 13 Rule 1 CPC 28.09.2005 14-15

1 Power of Attorneys of Authorized Officer A&A/1 16-19 AVAILABLE2 Appoint letter A/2 20 AVAILABLE3 Copies of the resolution 22.05.1996 B 21-23 N.A4 Account opening form 29.05.1996 B/1 24 N.A

Certificate of Incorporation of the Plaintiff Company

21.05.1996 C 25 N.A

5 Sanction Advice 09.04.2001 D 26-34 AVAILABLE6 Agreement for Financing (CF) 10.04.2001 E 35-38 AVAILABLE7 Promissory note (CF) 10.04.2001 E/1 39-40 AVAILABLE8 Letter of Hypothecation 10.04.2001 E/2 41-42 AVAILABLE9 Agreement for Financing 10.04.2001 F 43-46 AVAILABLE

10 Promissory note 10.04.2001 F/1 47-48 AVAILABLE11 Letter of Pledge 10.04.2001 F/2 49-51 AVAILABLE12 Stock Reports F/3&F/4 52-54 AVAILABLE13 Agreement for Financing 10.04.2001 G 55-58 AVAILABLE14 Promissory Note 10.04.2001 G/1 59-60 AVAILABLE15 Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 22.01.2004 G/2 63 TO BE

CHECKED16 Bill of Exchange 30.03.2004 G/3 62-63 TO BE

CHECKED17 Letter No.DPOL/4/4 22.04.2004 G/4 64 TO BE

CHECKED18 Memorandum of Deposit of Litle Deeds B 65 AVAILABLE19 Letter of Hypothecation 26.08.1999 H/I 66-68 N.A20 From X 28.08.1999 H/I 66-68 N.A21 Certificate of Charge Registeration 19.01.1999 H/2005 76 N.A22 From X 09.04.1996 G/9 102 N.A23 Memo of Deposit of Title Deed 24.01.2002 H/4 75 AVAILABLE24 Letter of Hypothecation 24.01.2002 H/5 26-78 AVAILABLE25 From XVI 24.01.2002 H/6 79 N.A26 Certificate of Charge Registration 26.01.2002 H/7 80 AVAILABLE27 General Power of Attorney 07.08.2000 H/8, H/9 81-97 AVAILABLE28 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed I 98-99 AVAILABLE29 Mortgage Deed 16.08.2002 I/I 100-108 AVAILABLE30 General Power of Attorney I/2 109-114 AVAILABLE31 Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin I/3 115-120 AVAILABLE32 Letter of Continuity of Mortgage 25.04.2003 I/4 121 AVAILABLE33 Sale Deeds ( 6 in number) 20.03.1982 I/% to I/10 122-155 AVAILABLE34 Personal Guarantees J to J/2 156-161 AVAILABLE35 Letter of Awareness J/3 & J/4 162-167 AVAILABLE36 Copy of Resolution 08.03.2002 K 168 N.A37 Copy of Resolution 30.05.2003 K/I 169 N.A38 Sanction Advice 05.10.2002 K/2 170-180 AVAILABLE39 Sanction Advice 12.09.2003 K/3 181-189 AVAILABLE40 Letter from DIL 12.07.2002 L/1 190 N.A41 Letter from DIL 19.11.2002 L/1 191-192 N.A42 Letter from DIL 01.02.2003 L/3 193 N.A43 Letter from DIL 08.02.2003 L/4 194 N.A44 Letter from DIL 20.02.2003 L/5 195 N.A45 Letter from ABL 18.09.2003 L/6 196 N.A

46 Letter from ABL 25.09.2003 L/7 197-198 AVAILABLE47 Letter from DIL 27.09.2003 L/8 199-200 AVAILABLE48 Letter from ABL 16.10.2003 L/9 201-204 AVAILABLE49 Statement of Accounts M to M/1 205-754 AVAILABLE50 Statement of Accounts N to N/1 755-807 AVAILABLE51 Statement of Accounts O to O/1 808-810 AVAILABLE52 Stay application with affidavit 811-816 53 Vakalatnama 817

To

M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited,Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore.

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED Advocate High Court33-C Main Gulberg, Lahore.

Mr. Khurrum Saeed, Advocate,Supreme Court of Pakistan,252-C, Wazir Ali Road,Upper Mall, Lahore.

MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED Advocate High Court

33-C Main Gulberg, Lahore.

PLA No.42-B/2005 by the Defendant No.1, PLA No.43-B/2005 by the

Defendants No.2 to 4, PLA No.44-B/2005 by the Defendant No.5 and PLA

No.45-B/2005 by the Defendants No.6 to 9.

3 . That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 have been sued in

capacity of guarantors as they stood as guarantors by executing personal

guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees respectively in favour of the

Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to and availed

by Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff Bank. Similarly, the Defendant No.5 also

mortgaged his property/assets with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities that

are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendant No. 5 has also been

sued in capacity of mortgagor having mortgaged its properties as security for the

facilities that are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendants Nos. 2

to 9 are also liable for the suit amount and as prayed for in the Plaint a decree is

also liable to be passed against them through sale of their properties whether

mortgaged or not.

That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as guarantors by

executing personal guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees respectively

in favour of the Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended

to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank. Defendant No.1 also

mortgaged, charged and pledged its fixed assets and stocks respectively with the

Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit. Similarly,

Defendant No. 5 also mortgaged its property/assets with the Plaintiff as security

for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit

ABL Diamond Polymer

Documents

Transcript of ABL Diamond Polymer